Ivy Bridge Academy Fall 2021 JV Varsity Tournament
2021 — Online, GA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am currently a high school public forum debater. I qualified for the TOC in 2021. This is how to win my ballot:
1) Weighing -- don't just state your impacts, actually COMPARE impacts. In my eyes weighing is extremely important because it provides an effective and straightforward mechanism for evaluating the round. Moreover, understand that if you read unquantified, nebulous/vague impacts, I'm going to have a hard time voting for you.
2) Collapsing -- Even though I try to flow everything, the big picture story/narrative is what ultimately matters most. In other words, SUMMARIES MUST NARROW DOWN THE DEBATE to a few core arguments.
3) Warranting -- Cards are great, but if I don't understand the underlying logic behind an argument, it probably won't impact my final decision. The best arguments are logically sound AND supported by quality evidence.
Speed: You may go faster than you would with a lay judge; however, if you go too fast, I will stop flowing. Thus, it's safer to slow down and take your time (this will help your speaks as well).
Second Rebuttal: Frontline!
Summaries: Must extend offense (case and turns) AND defense
I debated PF in high school.
I am okay with speed.
I will flow every speech, but not crossfire.
I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts.
Please give an off time roadmap before your speech and sign post during your speech.
I will mainly vote based off of your final focus.
- Please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.
I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.
My Debate Experience-
South Forsyth HS Freshman
PF Nat Circ Debate with 4 years of experience including multiple national tournaments
Please add email@example.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.
Things to watch out for-
What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)
What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.
Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.
Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.
Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.
Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.
Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.
Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.
Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-
Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).
Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.
Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”
Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.
Specific Speaker Point evaluations-
<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.
<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.
<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.
<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.
30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.
I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:
-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.
-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.
-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.
-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.
-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.
-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.
-Preflow before the round.
-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.
-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.
-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.
Any other questions should be addressed before start time.
(Whenever ur in a round with me just put #Kallu2024 in the chat so I know u read my paradigm) I'm an experienced debater, I did policy for a year and then I did pf for about 2 years, so as you can probably see I am a tech judge. Overall i'm a pretty chill judge, I don't like interfering during rounds too much. Everyone should know what order as well as how long each speech should be so please don't ask me. If for some reason you don't know how long each speech is and in what order to give each speech don't ask your opponents or me, ask your partner. If your partner doesn't know, well...sucks to be you. I'll usually will give you no more than 5 minutes max to pre-flow so try to prep and stuff b4 hand.
Speed: I don't care how fast or slow u go. You can spread...ik u don't here that very often now do u.
Case: Lemme jut be up-front with u...don't make bad arguments. There will always be good contentions and arguments to make, so don't pick the weakest most outstretched argument in the world. It's not gonna get u anywhere, trust me! Also try not to have more then 3 contentions. (Any speech titles that r funny/creative= +.5 speaks)
Cross: Unlike most judges, I like aggressive cross fires that clash and spice the round up more, however YOU CANNOT ACT RUDE OR MAKE ANY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS. (This may seems obvious, but you'll be surprised to hear what some ppl will say to their opponents during cross!)
Response Speech: I LUV OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS (Turn, DA--> the more of these the better, Link Turns, etc. )+ NUs. Also if you are the 2nd debating team pls frontline ur opponents arguments. I won't vote you down if u don't frontline in response speech, but I will vote you down if u don't respond to all of the opponents arguments in Summary. You can weigh here but I wouldn't if I were u.
Summary: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH IN THE ROUND. It is vital that this speech tells me these 5 things:
1. Which contention(s) your going for, and a case extension (If you don't extend ur case in Summary and ff I will cross all of ur contentions of the flow, give the other team the win, and give you 26 speaker points:)
2. Frontline: YOU MUST FRONTLINE ALL OF UR OPPONENTS RESPONSES TO THE CONTENTION UR GOING FOR AND FRONTLINE ALL OF THE TURNS MADE ON THE CONTENTION(s) YOU DROPPED. (and yes that is mandatory) If you do not frontline some of the opponents arguments, and they don't extend them in 2nd summary or ff then ur off the hook, but if not then...let's just say that ur chances of winning just went down by like 50%.
3. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, did I mention that u have to WEIGH. If you don't properly weigh u will also have lower chances of winning. Also pls don't be that one debater that tells me that the world is going to end if I don't vote for u. It'll surprise u how many times someone made the argument that nucs r gonna destroy the world if I don't vote for one side on a topic that has nothing to do whatsoever with nuclear warfare.
Types of Weighing I like:
- I can stand Magnitude if u give me some sort of META Weighing. If u don't now what that is, don't use magnitude to weigh
(Unless ur weighing on pre-req u MUST have at least 2 of these weighing mechanisms)
4. Extend Responses, all of the responses that u don't extend will be crossed of my flow
FF: In this speech YOU MUST TELL ME WHY I SHOULD GIVE U MY BALLOT, u need to extend ur responses, case, and weighing mechanisms here if u want them to stay on the flow. (DON'T BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE, i wasn't born yesterday, i will cross it off the flow)
30- I'll probably nvr give anyone a 30 unless ur a world champion speaker...sry (If ur a good enough speaker and I like u I'll give u a 29.5)
29- Good Job ur not a disappointment :)
28- U were ok
27- meh u need to brush up in some areas
26- ...plz get better (I prob won't give this out to anyone)
If you read theory or ks I will find u and give u a 3 hour course about y u shouldn't use ks or theory. If u don't know what i'm talking about then consider urself blessed!
All in all, be a good kid, don't be a bad debater, and most importantly try to entertain me! (The happier i am the happier u'll be)
I am a PF debater with 4 years of experience. I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, ableism, or other personal attacks. In terms of arguments, I am definitely tech over truth. If you don’t respond to arguments or responses, I will weigh them even if the arguments are ridiculous or false. Make sure to respond to everything you want to extend. If you decide to drop a contention, make sure you have responded to all turns on that argument, or the other team will still be allowed to extend turns.
Speaking- I am fine with speed, but make sure you signpost arguments, weighing, and which side of the flow you are on. Make sure your speech is clear with not a lot of blank time.
Frontlining- I prefer you frontline in the second rebuttal, but I will not consider a response conceded if you don’t.
Summary- I regard summary speech as the most important speech in the debate. I will not flow anything in the final focus that is not in summary so make sure you bring up the major voting issues by summary speech. Weighing should be brought up by summary speech at the latest, if not already brought up in rebuttal.
Weighing- In terms of weighing, impacts weighing is important but it is also important for you to discuss why your links hold up more than theirs, and extend the warranting behind your contentions.
Crossfire- I will not flow crossfire, but I will be listening, so if anything important is said in crossfire, you must bring it up in your speech. I expect civility in cross, so continually interrupting your opponent or being overly aggressive will cost you speaker points.
Cards- I am fine with paraphrasing, but if a card is important to the outcome of a round, I may call for it. If you can’t produce a card or have misrepresented a card, I will ignore the argument. If you have deliberately and extremely misrepresented a card, I might drop you.
Time- I will time speeches and prep, but I expect teams to also keep track of their own time.
If you reference Olivia Rodrigo or ask your opponent if water is wet in cross I will give you an extra speaker point
i am a publik furam debooter who has debooted for 3 yearz
"ur mum :0"
unless you are dhruv honorao dont read an analogy cuz dhruv=god
tings that are important :0
1. dont lay adapt to me or i eat ur soul >:))
2. im hungry so bring me food
3. cross: idc do whatever unless you conceed something that is brought up later in which case i will pay attention
4. rebuttal: yes second rebuttal has to frontline and everything in final has to be in summary. read turns pls or i cry ;-;
5.summary: extend case, extend responses, i value case and weighing over turns on their case that go dropped because honestly if u win case and weighing you win the round yay
6. final focus: surprise surprise you can't just win off of summary :0 chances are if you do better in summary you will win the round but if your final focus isn't good then i wont vote you.
7. weighing: dont drop their weighing. weigh your arguments. dont say you win on magnitude etc. and sit down w a r r a n t it or i will get sad.
8. if u are racist sexist homophobic etc. i dont care how bad the other team is im dropping you
9. dont call me judge im 13 not 30, and dont call me ms. or i will actually cry ;-;
10. dont ask me about preferences read my paradigm and before you ask yes i am fine with speed but if you spread i won't be able to flow everything
11. i calleth for cardeth when ur evidence is utter rubbish or if it cameth down to ev vs. ev so dont take 5 hours chop chop i dont have all day
I'll start u at a 28
1. if you make good decisions and seem to have actually read my paradigm: 29-30
2. pretty good: 28-28.9
3. ehhhhh: 27-27.9
4. if you are blatantly rude and racist, sexist, homophobic in round: 18 idc if i cant put it in tab i can watch me >:(((
also don't leave saying you got screwed it will make me sad ;-;
postround ✨ ask questions ✨ get better ✨
and now three of my favorite things:
1. Legally Blonde the Musical >:)) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiX-EJA8n4w
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8GiPKNUmSQ. aatreya=god
3. According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations.
pranaya balaji, basically everything im okay with
Tech Judge with a few caveats:
- Tech > truth. The real world isn't a debate round, external factors always play a role in impacts. Debate competitions should be evaluating the debaters on debate skills, not the actual merits of either side of a resolution.
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to answer first rebuttal. All frontlining needs to be in Summary.
- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary, responses must be extended from RT to Summary to FF to count, answering front lining along the way. Start weighing in Summary, Rebuttal has too many burdens on its back already. Weighing is getting more important now that more teams seem to be finally learning how debate works.
-Weigh not at your own peril, for it is a nice way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This isn't a chess tournament. You don't win by moving and capturing pieces. You win on how your impacts relate to your opponents'.
- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.
- Summary needs to answer rebuttal and extend any RTs that want to be used in Final Focus. NSDA ought to rename Summary to “Frontline” or “Second Rebuttal.” May help clear up some doubts.
- X outweighs Y is not really a response. If dropped, I will consider X to outweigh Y unless there are other impacts the team advocating Y has which may combine to end up in a ballot for team arguing Y.
- Turns must be implicated and weighed. The only exception is when you do a direct turn (ex: one team says "XYZ increases econ growth" and you read a turn saying "XYZ decreases econ growth"). Even then, you should weigh it for speaks and to make it easier to evaluate, but I won't drop it off immediately like I will with an indirect turn.
- Framework/Overview needs cards, serious warranting. Too many teams use this as a way to juke out inexperienced teams. CBA default.
- Cleanly outline your arguments when you extend them in summary and final focus. Ideally you are also extending important card names as well, but at minimum uniqueness, links, and impacts should be extended if you want me to evaluate them.
- Keep crossfire polite and use it for its intended purpose. Incorporate general topic knowledge and explain ideas well. Too many teams go all out rude in elims to gain as much dominance as possible (whether early elim rounds at random state tourney all the way to late elims at varsity Harvard/TOC). This harms educational value in debate.
-Progressive argumentation (K, theory) has little place in PF. Sign up for a different event if you don’t like this. Topicality may be fine depending on the topic since some topics allow for different interpretations of implementation methods, which may have different impacts.
- Plans/CPs have no place in PF. They will not be weighed. Existing alternatives/plans may be considered based on their odds of enactment. Definition of counterplan can be debated as well.
- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.
-Speed is cool, but speed is inversely proportional to nuance that I flow. It's your job to ensure I get down what you want me to, not mine. PF isn't policy lite, and some debaters are beginning to push the boundaries a bit too much. Don’t be one of them.
- If evidence is indicted, the evidence in question must be shown to the judge. I may call cards at my discretion.
- In the ridiculously unlikely event that the debate ends in a tie on impacts(may happen if both sides links are both completely destroyed), I take a page from Policy/LD and vote Con on presumption. Don't stress about this, it almost never happens even at the highest levels.
For COVID-19 season:
- Turn your cameras on, stand up, and use gestures like you normally would. If for some reason you can’t do that, tell me BEFORE the round.
- Doesn’t matter if you can’t get on the call, your prep will be running anyway cause I have no way to know if you are lying or not. I keep the official prep, I don't care if your timer is off. Excessive dilly-dallying will cut against your speaker points and may count against your timer.
- Keep the mike close enough so we can all hear.
- I don't do oral RFDs. I drop the speech-by-speech comments into the chat, and then you can ask questions. That forces you to read the speech-by-speech commentary which I spend time and effort writing up. In my experience, this leads to more questions about the reasoning behind the decision and thus improvements that can be made for the future instead of the usual obsession with a W or an L.
Speaks: (Given in 1/10th increments unless tournament rules state otherwise.)
Speaks are getting too inflated, may adjust scale downwards later to help change norms.
<26 means you were disruptive, violated an NSDA rule for which the penalty is a forfeit, or technical forfeit (COVID season). F
26.1-26.9 means you need SIGNIFICANT improvement and/or probably dropped case. Failing to cleanly extend case, responses, or frontline in summary or final focus is an easy way to earn this score. This score means you had absolutely no clue what you were doing in one or more speeches. D
27-27.9 means you missed more than a handful of things on the flow or made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round. You may have had a general idea of what you needed to do, but stumbled through the details. C
28-28.9 means you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing. Maybe a few minor things conceded or extended through ink. You had a general idea of what to do, and got most of the details correct, but the errors were somewhat obvious and detracted from your performance. B
29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, you do comparative weighing. No major tactical or strategic blunders. Nothing is dropped or extended through ink. You got pretty much all of the details correct, and even the most astute observer would have to squint really hard to notice your errors. A
29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments AND THE WEIGHING MECHANISMS, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy. A+
- 2nd speakers: Sometimes, your partner screws stuff up in Summary and you had the skills to do it better, but your speaks are low because of the "no new content in FF" rules. Since Summary and FF are almost identical these days, in a PRELIM ROUND you can bring up new frontlines and weighing in FF and I will keep that in consideration when awarding speaks. However, new stuff will NOT affect the W/L decision. In elims, no speaks are awarded, so don't bother.
- The best debaters transcend the round itself and provide a clear narrative beyond technical jargon. Enough with lay judge, flay judge, tech judge.... The best debaters distinguish themselves in front of all judges. Tell jokes, analogies, give good examples to enhance speaker points. If you know the ins and outs of the topic and your case, you will surprise yourself as to how well you do.
- This paradigm will be adapted as PF debate community norms change. Ask BEFORE the round to clear up doubts about paradigm.
- Embrace the suck. You only get to do competitive debate for so long, you might as well enjoy it. If you find this exhausting or boring, know you’ll probably have to do even more frustrating things in life. Just do yourself a favor and learn how to get through it now.
Hello! My name is Shivani and I am a current Sophomore and Psychology-Premedical major with double minors in Chemistry and Biology at Mercer University! My pronouns are she/her. It's nice to meet you! I have done both Public Forum and a variety of speech events for 4 years at Milton High School. I have also attended a few respectable debate camps such as the National Debate Forum and Emory's Barkley Forum so it's safe to say I do know a bit about debate hehe.
With that being said, I have a few things that you should keep in mind :)
*Speech- I am okay with any speed. As long as you speak clear and with confidence! This is public forum so please do not spread!
*Please make sure you are weighing and really impacting out throughout the round. I firmly believe that every speech is important but your summary and final focus really needs to drive the point home in order for me to consider it!
*I am huge on respecting pronouns so please let me know or correct me if I do not use your preferred pronouns!
*I am okay with off-time road maps but like it says in the title, do not make it too long or I will consider it part of your time!
*Please Please Please be respectful and nice! As Thumper from Alice and Wonderland said, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all"! I take this very seriously and if you say anything offensive or rude, I will immediately take off speaker points. I like humor but I also like professionalism!
*I will keep track of the time but please keep track of your time as well and be honest!
*Theory, Disads, and Kritiks....not a huge fan of using them personally but I am perfectly fine with them as long as they are reasonable and in boundaries of what you are talking about. Do not go overboard
*I like to go through the round at the end in my oral feed depending on time so if you do not prefer this, let me know! I will be more than happy to write up a more detailed written feedback!
*More than anything, I know how stressful and intense debate can be (trust me, I have gone through my fair share of heels by anxiously pacing up and down the hallways before rounds). So relax, try your best, and give it your all no matter how difficult the round may seem!
*If you have a questions, concerns, cries of woes, etc..., please ask me or let me know before or after the round! No question is dumb but please let me know beforehand!
With that being said, let's close this paradigm and debate! Good Luck!
-I have been doing pf debate for 2 years and around 2 years of policy before that (not that I remember anything)(so don't you dare lay adapt me, I know what im doing. most of the time)
im probably younger than you so don't make me seem ✨o l d ✨
bribe me with food and you will probably win because food=life (bring me boba for more speaks)
-don't give me bs cards and take 5748 years to fine them
OVERALL: Don't be stupid, dumb, drop cases, racist, homophobic, etc.
Case- Don't make crazy stupid arguments, stock contentions are better than arguments I don't understand. But if your running stock cases don't make it too boring or i'll fall asleep and you will not win. Also, try to run more than 1 contention. Extend your case throughout summary and ff or else I will consider it dropped. if your reading triggering contentions GIVE ME A WARNING. And make sure thats not your only case. Throughout my debating years, I have seen some um not so pleasant arguments.
Rebuttal- Frontline in 2nd Response. Go down the flow, and please signpost or I'll be sad. (please read delinks, turns, nu's, and da's, make ur offense kinda interesting at least)respond to stuff because just ya-
Summary- Don't bring up anything new. Just extend responses, defense, and offense. Summary is extremely important don't drop stuff. Dropping= Bad. In summary heres what I need to see:
1. Case extensions (your case) if you don't extend then i will say you dropped your case. Here you can concede on one contention, link, subpoint, etc. This is a good tactic but make sure to extend responses completely.
2. Frontlines. Yeah just frontline your case please, if you don't frontline in 2nd response then it this dosen't matter SO FRONTLINE IN 2ND RESPONSE.
3. Extend offense. yup do that please!
3. Weighing. YOU BETTER WEIGH. And please weigh more, don't just weigh on magnitude that's stupid. Also, make sure to give me warrants and quantification. Don't just be like: We win on magnitude because we save lives, We win on timeframe because our impacts come first. Please don't do that. see weighing section for more info)(also see charlie zhangs paradigm where he took the time to write a paragraph about it)
FF- Just basically say what you said in summary but don't make it boring. Make sure to weigh or else I won't count your impacts. Try your best to gimme voters.
Cross- It's useless unless you bring it up later
Weighing- Don't be ✨basic ✨. don't just weigh on magnitude or probability or timeframe. Also weigh on prereq, short circuit, etc. I'm fine with meta weighing Don't just weigh on 1 thing. When you got same impacts but dif mechanisms META WEIGH. WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. Found this on someone paradigm i forgot who-
K/Theory: I HATE K'S WITH A DEEP PASSION, IF YOU USE ONE I WILL DROP YOU. THEY ARE STUPID AND USELESS. IF YOU DARE READ A THEORY IM GONNA FIND A WAY TO GIVE YOU NEGATIVE SPEAKS OR JUST GIVE YOU A 10 I DONT CARE IF TABROOM DOESN'T ALLOW IT. I WILL FIND A WAY.
Speed: I fine with talking fast, but don't spread. If I can't hear you I can't flow you. If you read faster than 300 wpm send me your speech doc.
Time: Keep your own time. Finishing your sentence is fine but I won't flow any other points after time. Also keep your own prep, im to lazy to sit there with a stopwatch. If you go over prep I will dock speaks.
Speaks (speaker points):~~~~~~~~
I start you at 28
-speaks to fast= -1
-funny contention names= +1
-be rude= -3
-interesting to listen to= +1
-be not boring=+.5
-put #fionaisthebest in chat= +1
-say Blackpink in your area somewhere in the debate= +1 (i must hear it)
30- I will rarely give out unless your god tier.
29- I will usually give out these if you are a great speaker.
28- Ig my average if your 28 and over you are great in my opinion
27- Still good don't feel too bad
26- You suck go to another hobby (I rarely give these out) (If you get a 26.5 ur still good)
how i vote-
have a strong case, read turns please, don't drop things, don't randomly point out the other team dropped things. And if you read a turn about nuclear extinction wiping west Africa off the map you will instantly win.
for more chaotic paradigms check out these annoying people:
Eshawnvie Kallu, Charlie Zhang, Aditi Kothari, Spoorthi Kakarla, Ella Liu, Aanya Baddela and Paheli Patel. On second thought don't read Ella's paradigm she said blackpink sucks. >:(
FOLLOW ME FOR EXTRA CREDIT-
I am a middle school varsity debater. Doing this will 100% win my ballot:
Weighing - I tend to lean towards weighing, it helps me clear up both arguments in the simplest way.
Be realistic in impact weighing, use time & probability. Don’t go saying “Poverty doesn’t matter compared to …” be realistic and try to find other things. I also do not like what-if Impacts that are highly improbable. Don't appreciate Nuclear War impact either.
Make sure to restate cases & cards, but don’t go re-reading your entire case. Restating certain links is good, but don’t read your entire case word for word. - this won't affect W/L, but will help speaker points.
Warrant - Cards are great, but tell me the logic behind it.
- Time management - Watch the clock. Don't waste time on a single card and miss all of your other responses/frontlines
Tech > Truth
Please don't speak TOO fast. If another tech judge can't understand you, it means I can't either
if you read this, privately message me "NATO" for +.5 :)
Before going into the nitty-gritty, the most important thing for me in any round is WEIGHING. I always look to weighing first to frame the round. Whichever team is winning the weighing is much more likely to get my vote in almost any debate round (there are exceptions of course).
However, that doesn't mean saying a weighing mechanism and moving on justifies. Also, please respond to your opponent's weighing. Especially in Varsity, when two teams do weighing and do not respond to each other, I have to make the weighing debate a wash OR I might have intervene in the round, which none of us want.
- Tech > truth
- Second rebuttal must frontline at least the offense read, but ideally the defense as well.
- Summaries are the hardest speech in PF, extend defense in first summary as well, no sticky defense.
- Signpost well. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I probably won't flow it which is problematic for you, especially if what you said is important to the round.
- Paraphrasing is fine, but if I catch you severely misconstruing a card, then that will put a dent on your speaker points.
- Speed is fine too, but if you spread, send a speech doc
- I have a very high threshold for voting on turns that aren't weighing. Prove to me why winning this piece of offense wins you the round.
- For rebuttals, dumping is fine, but please implicate these responses rather than making them couple second blips.
- Be strategic. Collapse and weigh early. I would rather vote for the team that has less offense but well implicated rather than a team with multiple pieces of offense but barely explained.
- I won't vote off anything I do not get a clear warrant for.
I usually give high speaker points, averaging a 29. This goes up and down depending on your in-round strategy and how you perform overall in each speech you do. You will obviously get very low speaker points if you are blatantly rude in any manner.
Overall, have a fun and great debate round!
Hey, I'm Aesha, a debater at Northview High School & Ivy Bridge Academy.
I'm pretty experienced debater in both Policy and Public Forum, as I've been debating for about 3 years in Policy and 4 years in Public Forum.
This is what I'm looking for in an ideal round:
Evidence: Paraphrasing is perfectly fine, but make sure you have cut cards and evidence for each point that you state. If call for a card, you should be able to show it to me in a timely manner.
Warranting: Explain your arguments thoroughly and make sure I can clearly depict what your team is conveying. Give logic for all of your cards, and explain why they matter to your claim.
Weighing: I will most likely be judging the round based on how well both teams weigh the debate, tell me what should matter and why it should matter, and you must compare, simply weighing will not suffice.
Frontlining: Although, not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending.
Collapsing: Having multiple points is completely fine, but better warranting with fewer points will most likely increase your chances of winning the round.
Prep: Make sure that you time your own prep. I'm fine with the teams prepping during the other side's prep.
Speaks: I’ve done policy so I can handle some speed, but speak clearly and don't spread too much. If your speaking is way too fast, I will stop flowing, so I suggest that you speak slowly from the start. During cross, look at me, you are trying to convince me not the other team. And if you can do everything that I just said above, I will most likely give you higher than a 27. I tend to give most speakers above 28s, so just make sure that you articulate and emphasize, and it should be fine!
- If you share your speeches with me, then it will help me flow and better understand your arguments, and I will give both speakers .3 speaker point (only if I would have originally given you 28.5 points or less). Email them to firstname.lastname@example.org
PF: Everything that you want me to consider from the summary when evaluating the winner, should be restated in the final focus. I won't flow it for your team unless I hear it in the final focus. Don't bring up any new evidence in the 2nd summary.
- Summary: Condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you haven’t weighed in rebuttal, then it should most definitely start here. Everything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it.
- Final Focus: Clear and concise points as well as weighing should be the general structure of this speech. I will only flow points that have also been mentioned in the summary, and don’t forget to answer extended responses. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and detail the implications.
- Crossfire: any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the next speech for me to flow and evaluate it. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don’t mind if you sit during grand cross.
Policy: Everything that you want me to consider from the entire round, so be pointed out in the 2NR & 2AR, but don't spend much time on it, make sure that you leave time to weigh the round.
Ask any questions you have, after reading this, before the round starts. Good Luck!
Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 2 years.
If I am your judge, please read the paradigm for your respective divisions.
I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. There are a few thing that are not negotiable in will result in you automatically losing. First, is being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, etc.) Second, don't steal prep, which means, if there is a tech problem, you are not permitted to prep during that time.
1. Case- For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.
2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline, but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.
3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.
4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.
5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points. Also, try not to be too aggressive in crossfire, it becomes difficult to understand, if one of you do adress me. If it is too aggressive, I will decrease speaker points. The lowest I go is 28 and I typically stay in the range of 28-30, sometimes 30.
6. Asking for cards- Considering the current situation, I will not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better.
1. Case- Most of the people in JV are quite experienced debaters, so y'all tend to have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.
2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.
For turns, your turn needs to have an impact otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as defense.
For JV, I require the second rebuttal to frontline, or I will be extending the turns on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.
Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. My weighing order is
1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms
6. Any Others
4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important.
5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points. Also, try not to be too aggressive in crossfire, it becomes difficult to understand, if one of you do adress me. If it is too aggressive, I will decrease speaker points. The lowest I go is 28 and I typically stay in the range of 28-30, sometimes 30.
6. Asking for cards- Considering the current situation, I will not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better.
I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:
1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.
2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.
3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.
4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing is important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.
5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.
6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.
7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.
8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving into the other side of the flow or weighing.
9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.
10. References - any well executed Biggy, Kendrick, Logic, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.
11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.
hey people! my name's hannah sundar and fyi i'm in 7th grade so i'm not super strict on judging, but there are a few things i look for
1. contentions: make sure you have good cases, and add something different uwu
2. crossfire: ask whatever you need to but please do not start yelling because my ears will fall off and that isn't good
3. responses: im first speaker so.. try to respond to every important case you can!
4. summaries: these are crucial, respond to the cases you couldn't get to, and make sure not to add any new info!
5. ff: i legit never flow this so just give me a whole brief summary of the debate
(PRO TIP: IF YOU DONT WANT TO GET A 26 PLZ BE RESPECTFUL TO OPPONENTS PLZ PLZ)
AND ALSO ISNT THIS THE BEST PARADIGM YOUVE EVER READ OWO
Here's my paradigm for novice debaters.
-I will drop you if you try to cheat during the round. Examples of cheating are taking extra prep time, card clipping, etc..
-No racism, homophobia, or bullying should occur during the round.
I will call for cards if the card supports one of the main arguments argued in the round. If you don't have a card and your argument is clearly flawed, I am going to drop that argument or give it to the other side.
-You can read your contentions as fast as you want to, but make sure arguments are still articulated and understandable.
-Try to make sure you don't go over the time limit. There's no penalty but I will stop you if you go over 15 seconds.
-Make sure you flow throughout the debate. Make sure you respond to most/all of the opponents arguments made in their case. REMEMBER: 2nd Speaker should frontline to make the case more organized. If you give me a list of 10 arguments with no evidence, I am not going to buy them unless you give me specific evidence. I may even call for the cards at the end so be sure that ALL arguments presented in the round have evidence (logical or cards).
-NO RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, OR BULLYING SHOULD OCCUR DURING THE ROUND OR EVEN IN CROSSFIRE.
Weighing is a big voter for me. If your impact is 2,000 people are dying, but the opponents impacts are 10,000 people dying I will vote for whoever articulates and weighs their arguments better.
If you cannot speak with clarity and talk fast, talk slowly. I will not vote you if I do not understand your arguments.
What I Vote For
-The side has given me clear arguments that make sense.
-All of the sides arguments are extended in summary and final focus.
I will not evaluate what is not extended.
-Evidence for most arguments presented in the round.
-Responds to all the opponents arguments.
-I am a Truth > Tech judge.
-WEIGHS IMPACTS (magnitude, scope, probability, etc...)
---fine with anything as long as its not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
---everything below is merely my thoughts on debate - good debating outweighs everything
---everybody should have cameras turned on at all times and mics muted when not speaking
---format the email chain with some useful information about the round (team names, tournament, round #)
---have fun! make jokes, use references, and just be yourself
---im not a pf debater -- im a policy debater so i wont be too familiar w/ pf norms -- everything below applies
---closer to policy the better (i.e., line by line, technical debating, less theatrics more ev comparison, etc.)
---I'm a 2N/1A who has exclusively read big stick extinction arguments on the AFF and a combo of politics DAs + process CPs + occasional Ks on the NEG - shouldn't really matter but might be useful to know
---clarity > speed - I'll only flow what I can hear
---"tech > truth but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di
---CPs - generally think everything except international fiat is debatable but condo is usually an uphill battle for the AFF - will automatically judge kick unless the AFF tells me by the 1AR not to
---DAs - all good here - most politics das are probably fake so spin matters much more than ev quality in these debates
---Ks v. Plan AFFs - go for it - not as familiar w/ high theory (old french dudes) but anything else is fine with me - AFF teams will usually get to weigh the AFF and NEG teams will get their reps links absent major technical concessions on framework - i'm most familiar with settler colonialism, antiblackness/afropessimism, capitalism/neoliberalism, fem ir/security, and psychoanalysis
---Ks v. Planless AFFs - would love to watch these debates but I'm probably terrible at adjudicating these - AFFs probably get a perm but everything else is *very* dependent on explanation
---Topicality v. Plan AFFs - would rather not judge these debates because of the insane amount of judge intervention that's generally needed BUT i tend to think that qualified, precise evidence is more important than a generic limits explosion argument - anything else is debatable
---Topicality v. Planless AFFs - yes fairness is an impact but you'll probably get more out of it by using it as an internal link to some clash/skills impact - ideologically I lean NEG here but I think K AFFs that are as close to the topic as possible and have a good ballot/debate key warrant can have a good shot at beating FW
---Soft Left AFFs - tbh I don't really care about the generic framing cards (extinction unlikely, conetta 98, no war, high prob impacts good, etc.) since they are hopelessly generic w/ minimal response needed - much more strategic route is to read Ks of CPs, DAs, topicality, etc. imo
---anything specific ask pre-round
---if you opensource let me know pre-rfd and i'll boost your speaks by 0.5
I am a current PF high school debater. I judge tech (most of the time) and focus on the big picture of the issue.
Define the status quo, do comparative weighting, and make sure warrants are thorough.
Here is how to win my ballot:
1. Warranting: quality>quantity. I can only vote on arguments I understand, so explain exactly how the links lead to the impacts. Cards and evidence are important, but don't get caught up in every detail, use them to support your logically sound arguments. I want to hear your narrative of the problem.
2. Collapsing: Be strategic- by the second half of the round, the debate needs to be narrowed. Then, center your arguments on the clashing points.
3. Weighing: I think this is the most important factor in the round, and easiest mechanism for me to vote on. Impacts have to be quantifiable, and backed with quality evidence. Provide metrics and compare: give me succinct reasons why I should prefer your argument. State how your framework will provide a better solution, or analyze how strong the effects of your resolution will be. Weigh impacts AND uniqueness. I value probability highly.
4. Frontlining: Obligated in 2nd rebuttal, but I encourage you to always frontline. It makes the debate more in-depth, and creates more clash (opportunities for comparison and interaction).
-Summary: 3 things- Explain the cases you are going for while responding at the same time, comparative weighing, extend responses so that they can be used in the Final Focus.
-FF: clear voters, write the ballot for me.
-Organize your speeches, signpost clearly, be enthusiastic about what you are arguing for, and have fun! :)
Add me to your email chain email@example.com
What is your debate/judge experience?
Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.
What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?
Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.
Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.
Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.
What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?
"Spreading" inane arguments.
Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.
Rude, talk over opponents.