I am a retired varsity LD debater who competed circuit, and currently competes at the college level so i'm pretty much fine with whatever you want to run.

Clashing, weighing, impacting, extending, and comparing evidence are fantastic ways to get my ballot.

For email chains: allendebate04@gmail.com

AFF should send the doc right when they enter the room, once its received by everyone we will start

In round I like to see a little framework debate, but heavy contention debate.

PLEASE DO EVIDENCE CLASH tell me why I should prefer your evidence, don't just restate what it says.

Be a good sport, if your opponent talks at a normal conversational speed with a super traditional case please don't spread a 3 off PIC, Counter-plan and K, I want everyone to be able to respond and engage with arguments, so at the end of the day just be nice.

Make sure you implicate your arguments (i.e. explain why they matter in the debate round). For example, if you are debating FW, say why it matters, such as it excludes your opponent's offence and means I vote for you. Weighing is also appreciated, as it makes it much easier to resolve rounds where both debaters have offence.

I'm fine with speed only if you're clear. Policy args (plans, CPs, DAs, etc.) are fine. I'll evaluate intense theory, K, or phil debates based on how you explain them, so if you don't explain it I will not interpret it myself or weigh it in. I hate a prioris, skep, and tricks, especially if your opponent doesn't know how to respond to them. I dont flow off the doc if i cant understand you i dont flow and will most likely stop typing and just stare at you.

NOVICES AT MINNEAPPLE: heavy on the point about being fair, if your opponent is reading something super traditional and you read super heavy policy args that they clearly can’t respond to, I won’t vote for you, make sure everyone is comfortable with it before the round if you plan on only running these.

I dont like the vote on full extinction. if you dont have any other offence i wont vote for you.

hey all, i have four years experience competing in traditional LD (some nat circ LD, competed at congress quals and watched a few pf rounds). i am a 2021 graduate from chanhassen high school in mn and i use she/her pronouns.

questions, comments, concerns, speech docs: sarahaspelin@gmail.com

TLDR: flay, be nice, have fun!!

yall take notes when i give feedback

please make the round a safe place. if you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know (you can send me a separate email, chat, or mention it in the round, or however makes you feel most comfortable), and i will intervene.

if you are discussing a serious topic please provide a trigger warning in the form of a question, and have a backup case. do not feel bad if u want to opt out of your opponents trigger warning.

(unless their tabroom account specifies pronouns) only refer to your opponent as “my opponent”, “aff/neg” or “they/them”, one time I heard “my enemy” so that's a fun way to get docked in speaks.

i've decided that i'm going to stop evaluating spreading. now that tournaments are online, how well i can understand you is dependent on whether or not you can afford high-speed internet access and a nice microphone in addition to how skilled you are, which is bad. considering this, i don't think i can justify trying to keep up with anything beyond a fast conversational pace - if you exceed what i see as reasonable i'll stop flowing and say "clear" until you slow down. if you don't slow down, i'll eventually just give up and stop listening to your arguments altogether.

if you're a progressive/circuit debater and you're debating a traditional debater/someone who is significantly less experienced than you, you should adjust your style so that there can be an actual debate (spreaders should always have an alternative case). you're going to have to use your best judgment here, but if you read arguments that your opponent clearly won't be prepared to engage with, i'm likely to drop your speaks or intervene against you.

you can time yourselves, finish your sentence after time, if your opponent is going over let me know by flashing ur hand or showing ur timer

general substantive preferences:

• cx is binding, anything you say during cx can and should come back during rebuttals. it doesn't get flowed but i'm listening.

• please link back to framework. please please please. if you don't link, i can't weigh. write my ballot for me. however, winning the framework is not a voting issue.

• i LOVE framework debates. love love love them. if you can give me a really good, clean, well thought out framework debate from both debaters, expect a double 30

• i hate hate hate value debates and i honestly don’t even care if you link to a value in rebuttal. if it were up to me everyone would be running standards only

• tech stuff; SIGNPOST, roadmap, extend, number your responses, voting issues, world comparison, crystallization, dont drop turns etc.

• your counterplan needs competition- why it is mutually exclusive to the neg.

• a lot of phil debates in LD seem like they have a large number of very underdeveloped arguments. i think you're better off making fewer, better-explained arguments in front of me. (i'd prefer 3 well justified and implicated reasons why util is bad over 7 one-sentence calc indicts)

• i do not believe in deontology so simple responses will do it for me (as long as you cover everything on their fw flow)

• extinction is probably bad, any impact turns like racism good etc will result in L20, conversation after round, and email to your coach

speaker points

• diction, fluidity, passion, cx and overall knowledge of ur case and the topic

• be respectful otherwise automatic 26 or lower speaks

• 27 fine, 28 good, 29 very good, 30 wow

nat circ

• kritiks, counterplans, aff plans, spikes, theory, multiple offs etc. are all things i can understand, however if you run a conditional off i am likely to vote with your opponent if their argument is simply that having too many is unfair.

• i'm probably not familiar with your specific lit on a K, so make sure that you can explain your arguments in terms that a normal person can understand.

• K affs should make it very clear what their advocacy is and why it does something other than say that the thing they critique is bad.

• not a fan of voting on spikes/tricks because u hid them throughout and your opponent didn't have enough time. also also i know you did not write them yourself. do not try to act like you did.

• i am a fan of deep rooted philosophy, just explain it to me well

• flexprep is gucci for clarification

evidence standards

• i get some methodology is hard to find but you should at least have something prepared if your opponent asks for it

• if you don't have the full cite or can't pull up the original doc i will not count it in the debate simply tell me there is no proof of evidence and ill drop it

public forum

• you can mostly apply the stuff above

• your evidence standards for studies are probably higher than mine, i see a lot of pf that is just about methodology, that is important but shouldn't be all of your voting issues

congress

overall:

• Address every member as Senator or Representative (if I hear you call a femme-presenting member of the chamber "ma'am," while masculine-presenting members are "Senator," you will be ranked down.)

• I pay attention to your questions (my favorite thing in LD)- ask ones that advance the round, not just because you haven't given a speech recently

• Please coordinate a docket before round that you know people have speeches somewhat prepped... no one likes awkward silence when the PO asks for speakers. *Covid-update* if you're pitching a docket and haven't had the ability to chat pre-round, put some thought into what has the most obvious clash and pref those bills

Speeches:

• Organization. Know when it's time to move on to crystallizations. I want at least two solid points with rebuttals throughout.

• Content. If you're one of those kids who hates when people refer to Congress as a speech category, do your part and implement clash. Starting at the first neg, you should be refuting previous speaker's points with each successive speech. I would even appreciate procatalepsis in the first aff. It's painful when we're 8 speeches in and someone stands up to give a speech will all new points and no sense of a rebuttal. I would rather a somewhat rushed/couple stumbles with amazing content than a flawless presentation with no substance.

• Delivery. Have passion. Show me you care. When you mention statistics, act like you care about the people they're representing. I want to see variety in hand gestures. *Covid-update* please still give extemporaneous speeches. I shouldn't be able to tell you're reading a pre-written speech verbatim from another screen.

• Time. Be mindful of time, but if you're under 3:15, I'm not going to penalize you a full point or anything. Timing also helps in the organization of your speech--2:30 on your first point and 0:30 on your second? :/

POs:

• I firmly believe in ranking the PO, unless there have been a number of mistakes made! You set the tone and energy of the round, so please keep the vibe up and don't condescend to the members of the chamber. Keep track of your precedence and recency, including questioning/direct. Make your time signals noticeable. There will be additional consideration for POs who ask the name pronunciation of each speaker before the session. Be aware of potential needs of the chamber (seating, mobility, volume level, visual time signals, etc.)

Update for Sept-Oct 2022 Topic:

This is my first time judging outside of being a debater since I've graduated, so I am very unfamiliar with the topic. Importantly, I also am judging this topic for the first time at Rosemount so be very clear when introducing the topic and your arguments.

I did LD at Minnetonka for 3 years (now I'm at the UMN) and am experienced in both traditional and nat circuit debate. I don't really enjoy more technical (nat-circuit-y) debate, but I have advanced at tournaments like Glenbrooks and Minneapple so I still do have an advanced knowledge of the techs.

The inherent values of the debate are about thinking critically and using logic to frame your arguments. If the debate suddenly devolves into a theory or K debate, make sure you actually show me how this mindset change will have solvency and apply empirically to the resolution.

I LOVE framework clash, but I also dislike useless framework debates. Framework debate can be used strategically. If you think you can just collapse frameworks and save time that way, I would advise you to do so.

I will be flowing the round but ultimately would like to make my decision without having to look at my flows. Be sure to crystallize the round and clarify your voter issues. 

Be sure to sign post.

P.S. if you manage to include any Taylor Swift references into your speeches, I'll up your speaker points <3

I'm a senior LD debater at Apple Valley.

I do mostly traditional debate but have some familiarity with progressive arguments.

I'm a first year out. I debated for all four years in high school. I am super comfortable judging a traditional LD debate. What I look for is smart argumentation, good layering, and weighing. If you give me an argument I haven't heard this season, I'll give you extra speaker points. However, if you spam a bunch of arguments in hopes that your opponent drops one instead of taking the time to have actual specific responses, I'll probably give you lower speaker points.

If you want to spread please send out a speech doc. If you want to make circuit arguments I have a little bit of experience. I'll evaluate the argument, but I might not be used to some of the jargon so be very obvious in your explanation. I understand the basic Ks but don't be pulling out something like Deleuze or Baudrillard. When it comes to theory, if it's frivolous, I'll buy most arguments against the shell. It would be in your best interest to not run theory with me as a judge.

Don't spread or make arguments when it is obvious that your opponent isn't used to these types of arguments ie. don't run a K on a novice. If you make the debate space unsafe for me or your competitor, depending on the severity I will tank your speaks or drop you. Please be nice to people :)

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

harith.dameh@gmail.com

Hello!

TLDR Trad is preferred, weigh, and here's my speaker point scale

27.5 is average in your category. I adjust from there; anything above a +/- 2 difference is significantly different from the average.

My background: I debated for 3 years in LD for Apple Valley High School. I assistant coached there.

Placed 8th at NSDA senior year. Very trad but have some circuit experience. I'm not good with the jargon so explaining stuff is nice

I basically agree with Nick Smith's paradigm on everything. A couple key points for me in LD:

1. Explain your arguments well. Make sure that you could succinctly explain your case to your grandma if she asked

2. Show how they link under the framework. I get so sad having to discount really well-thought-out arguments because they don't matter under FW and someone points that out, but that's the name of the game, I guess.

3. Please interact your arguments with both the rest of yours and your opponent's. They don't exist in a vacuum; each argument is a piece of the puzzle. Show the connections and you'll be great.

and have fun! ask me questions before the round if you have questions

EMAIL: averyadewitt@gmail.com

hello hello! i’m avery (they/he/she) + i’m a sophomore at yale studying the history of science, medicine, + public health. i will try to keep it short but you are welcome to ask as many questions as you need at the beginning of the round. my goal is to foster a comfortable and accessible environment that gives you and your opponent an equal opportunity to go in depth on a critical topic.

a little about me + my debate experience, + me as a judge:

-i did ld + world schools for 4 years. for ld, my experience is primarily traditional, but i have debated on the national circuit now and again. i have judged quite a bit before, but it's been a minute since i've done it formally for a virtual tournament.

-because i have a more traditional ld background, you are welcome to spread, but i am not as used to flowing spreading as other judges. i will leave it to you to decide how fast you would like to go, but i will be able to keep up best if you speak relatively quickly/a more traditional speed, but not necessarily spreading. your decision one way or the other will only affect my judging insofar as i may have a harder time catching more of what you’re saying at times.

-unless your arguments/evidence are problematic/discriminatory or obviously untrue, what is said in the round is what i will judge with. i will not insert personal feelings/opinions and everything you say will be taken into account to the best of my ability. with that being said, my top priority is a sustainable and supportive round space, and racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or otherwise problematic/discriminatory arguments will result in an automatic loss.

-if you have a weird or fun or kind-of-a-stretch argument, feel free to go for it! but if you choose to take this route, please explain each aspect of your argument and why it matters in detail. i am open to the many ways you might want to approach your side of the debate, but i will not vote for something that wasn’t made clear to me in the round. tricks probably aren’t the best idea lolll.

-dropped + extended arguments matter, but above all else what matters is what you’re advocating for (i.e. if one opponent emphasizes and explains a great point very well but drops a more minor argument, i will not automatically give you a loss for that drop). throughout the round but especially as you’re wrapping up your arguments, pleaseeee weigh + emphasize where you would like my attention to be on the flow. incorporate your side’s instructions for my judging into what you argue itself.

-speaker points: my average is usually a 28-29. if you’re reading this from the yale invitational, judges have been given the ability to give low-point wins and speaker points in tenths, as well as a guide for how we should award those points. 28-29 is the solidly good standard in that guide as well. “good” speaking for me will have much more to do with what you’re saying, how clearly you organize it, and how concisely you’re able to deliver what you’re saying, rather than presenting like you’re hosting a ted talk.

-cameras on is a vibe and lets you be more present in the round with your judge/opponent, but if for any reason you need to have it off, i trust you to make that call and it will not affect how i judge you by any means. i switched it up for various reasons when i was debating - we’ve allll been there with the virtual stuff.

have fun + be proud of yourself! and, of course, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. see you in round (:

I will buy literally any argument if you can articulate it effectively. Just don't get frivolous with the theory and I'd prefer you not spread as both tend to create some serious problems with accessibility and exploitation. What I like to see most is effective utilization of CX. Remember that there is a distinct difference between being assertive and being objectively rude. Don't be afraid to call out your opponent for being grossly offensive but remember to not fight fire with fire, I don't want to see a back and forth of ad hominem clashes. Keep in mind that I'm flexible with accommodations and I'll do my best to work around you to make a fair and productive round possible for everyone, but I will not break any rules in doing so. All in all, be cool and have fun.

For Congress:

For LD:

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly.

5) I don't like debate theory. It seems like an excuse not to debate the actual topic. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Speed does not equal winning. Just getting as muchstuff on the flow as possible is not a tactic for a win.

7) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THE CRITICISM

I think they are usually pretty good arguments but I feel as though they are often times assumed to come prior for no particular reason and I wont just arbitrarily do that for you. I need a substantial amount of explanation for me to feel comfortable voting on denser theories like afropessimism, baudrillard, lacan etc.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

dont read them please :)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

Note: Printers are sexist, what that means is up to me and your consequences for having printed material will be decided in the round.

Note #2: Electric Boogaloo: That being said, don't be rude, or -phobic or -ist. I will drop you if it's bad enough.

Note #3: I will listen to K lit, but make it applicable and relevant

Email: kappitalhill@gmail.com

Exp: I debated in Public Forum for four years, both locally in Minnesota as well as nationally at various tournaments.

I use they/them pronouns

Public Forum:

The biggest thing for me when it comes to any topic is understandability:

I can spread, if you expect to spread with me as a judge understand I can tell when it's just compensation for the lack of argumentative skill. I want a speech doc, in the case you are spreading, don't even ask me, just send it before the round and let me know when you arrive to the round.

I allow off the clock road-maps, don't make them excessive, I allow one redo per speaker.

Still, signpost even if you do use an off the clock road map

Do use your prep, be coordinated from speech to speech, be as close to consistent as possible.

I only need the author's Lastname and year for a tagline on a card, if there is an issue with credentials you may call for the evidence.

Extensions:

I do not believe in paraphrasing in the first reading of the evidence, if you want to paraphrase you must read the verbatim at some point previous.

I think that it is important that you do make verbal extensions, but if a point is not addressed by your opponent in rebuttal I do consider it to be sticky till summary. At that point, I do expect it to be at least mentioned if not explained.

Walk me through your link chain, even if you don't verbatim every piece of evidence I at least expect you to read the order to me.

In Final Focus I want you to treat me as if I wasn't there for the rest of the round (except in the case of my paraphrasing rule, duh)

Crossfire:

This is not an extra speech, so unless it is a good dialogue following a question, involve a question, please.

LD: I have never participated in LD

But I can follow along with speed and tech, doesn't mean I want to but I won't dock you for these things.

Just like before be clear and deliberate with your case and speeches.

I do understand the basics and fundamentals of the category, so consider me flay, focused on flow but not the most experienced with the nuances/lingo of the category.

Speaker Points: (When it comes to my RFD/Ballot you can call me Emily, cause I may be a little Blunt. But I don't mean to be rude, it is only in a place of care for your future as a debater)

At a Halloween tournament if you are wearing a costume auto 30

30: You did everything correctly, I have a minimal issue with anything you did

29: You did almost everything correct

28: Maybe one major flaw, or a couple of small ones

27 and lower I will detail my issues in my ballot or RFD

Disclosure: I don't unless mandatory.

Post-Round: If there is disclosure I do allow post rounding, but that is only if both teams are present to do so.

I may or may not change my decision.

If there isn't disclosure I am happy to talk about the round and help both teams improve both techniques and content

I am a parent judge. I would like that you don't spread(speed read) too fast, and I will say "clear."

Please weigh so I can decide the winner of the round more easily. Be nice, respectful, and have fun. I trust you both to time yourselves, be honest.

Please signpost, this is very important. Signposting is telling me where you're going. (If you're in 1AR, say "oh, going to N Contention 1, Contention 2, then N rebuttal, etc.)

Hi there! My name is Taylor Martinson and I go by she/they pronouns! I don't have a preference, so use them interchangeably, or just use one if you wish! In my years of high school, I did 4 years of LD debate at Mahtomedi Senior High, and raised quite a few debate children. I know what I'm doing is what I'm really trying to say. Heads up! I need to be in the email chain regardless of whether or not you speak fast because of my ADHD. It causes me to have some audio processing issues, so please send me your case ; taylormartinson18@gmail.com 

A quick run down for those who are coming into round and just need to have a decent understanding of my preferences as a judge:

1: I'm a criterion judge. I don't care for the value debate, so don't try and make me care about it cause I won't. You both are valuing something good. What matters is how we achieve said good.

2: Moreover, LINK. INTO. YOUR. CRITERION. You can win the criterion debate, but if you don't link into it and your opponent does? It doesn't matter if you're winning it.

3: Don't lie in your 2NR/AR. I may have ADHD, but I'm not stupid. Don't lie. Simple.

4: IMPACT PLEASE. For the love of whatever good there is still left on earth? IMPACT. YOUR. CARDS.

5: Don't be a bully. On top of this, don't be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, etc. I will give you an automatic loss, let your opponent wipe the floor with you about it, dock your speaks to the lowest available to me on the ballot, and tell your coach + tab outright that you were being a terrible person.

6: Speed is pretty chill. Just slow down during your rebutals so I can actually understand your arguments.

7: I hate theory. Despise it, really. I enjoy philosophy to a certain degree. K's are okay, but make sure they're properly explained.

8: Don't be that person who runs stuff just to confuse your opponent. It's really nasty to do, and even if I give you the win, I will dock your speaks.

9: If you can write the ballot for me, do so. I'm an 18 year old who works 4 days out of the week as a server. One of those days I'm typically there for 9-10 hours. You guys are probably the smartest people I talk to all week, so make it at least a little easy on me.

10: Despite me saying all of this, I want you guys to enjoy debate. I took my four years too seriously and didn't enjoy it as much as I could've. I don't think I truly let loose until my last year. Just have fun. Run weird stuff. Who cares if it goes terribly. You'll get a good laugh out of running that obscure card you found :)

Also, if you've gotten this far? Bring me a chocolate muffin from concessions and I'll give you bonus speaks equal to the amount that chocolate muffin was. Or, tell me who your favorite character from Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon and I'll determine if you deserve an extra speaker point. Because believe it or not, there are right and wrong answers in my book :)

I am a parent judge, so please do not spread under any circumstance, and speak clearly. 

Make sure you signpost and give me an off the time roadmap. 

Thanks!

Refer to me as “judge” and/or with gender-neutral pronouns please.

Put me on the email chain: cierraxphillips@gmail.com

About Me:

I’m Cierra (she/they), an honors pre-law student at the University of Minnesota. I was a varsity Lincoln-Douglas debater and captain for Rosemount High School, MN (Class of '22). I had debated for four years with experience in both traditional and circuit debate.

Overview:

Any exclusionary or discriminatory rhetoric will not be tolerated. I CAN and WILL shut down the round.

General Preferences:

SIGNPOST!!!

NO POST ROUNDING OR I'LL DOCK SPEAKS.

Trigger Warnings — Use them. It's so easy and avoids unnecessary conflict and trauma.

Speed — I’m fine with speed as long as it is equally accessible for your opponent. Don’t use it as a strategy to overwhelm competition, that destroys education and fairness.

Cross Ex (CX) — Be kind and ask questions that allow for answers. CX isn’t for grandstanding. Refer to your opponent by their position (i.e. Aff or Neg), not assumption of pronouns or name. Let’s make this educational not confrontational.

Tech>Truth — Debate isn’t for me to assert my personal bias or opinions; therefore, I vote off of the flow. Clearly extend arguments with explanations (i.e. perms, turns, etc). If you don’t explicitly state this, I have no reason to alter the flow in your favor. I will consider the point dropped. Again, I want to minimize my participation to a spectator rather than a debater when I’m judging.

Framework (FWs) — Extremely important for Lincoln-Douglas debate. The winning FW is how I’m viewing the round. Make sure your extensions and weighing are explicit and explained in terms of applicability and metrics.

Counterplans (CPs) — It’s your debate! I’m willing to hear out a good (emphasis on actually “good”) CPs!

Kritiks (Ks) — Same as a CP. Hell yeah! Always a fun time.

Disads (DAs) — Same as Ks and CPs. The basics of debate in my opinion, whether explicitly stated in a case or not.

Theory — Calling out in-round abuse is totally valid and I’m willing to vote down the debater in extreme cases, but the argument more often. If it’s disclosure theory however, you’ll have to argue pretty hard for it. I find it extremely dumb in most cases.

Topicality — Better have a good argument. I’m a strong believer in fiat as long as it isn’t abusive.

Tricks — Don’t. I’ll legitimately dock speaks.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Take deep breaths and drink some water. You got this.

I have been coaching traditional LD in Minnesota for 3 years. I did traditional LD for two years in high school in North Dakota. I know PF basics but haven't meaningfully engaged with it in 5+ years.

Number one thing for me is being respectful to your fellow debaters. I'm open to progressive cases/args but explain them fully. Speed is fine but I do not like spreading.

Assistant coach for Apple Valley, fourth year out, debated for four years. I spend most of the season judging local MN tournaments. My favorite types of debates are quality traditional rounds. Clashing, weighing, impacting, extending, and comparing evidence are fantastic ways to get my ballot. If you and your opponent are sending speech docs, include me: corirobertsmn@icloud.com

Notes:

* Number your arguments and signpost. I evaluate the round based heavily on the flow.

* Policy args (plans, CPs, DAs, etc.) are fine. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not great at evaluating intense theory, K, or phil debates. I hate a prioris, skep, tricks, and spikes.

* No, I won't flow off your speech doc. I'll only open it if I have a specific concern about a specific piece of evidence after the round.

* I'm fine with moderate amounts of speed only if you're clear. I'll yell clear twice, then put down my pen if I still can't understand. Usually, I find that my issue with spreading isn't speed but clarity (I'm atrocious at understanding you if you aren't clear or if you mumble).

* Asking me questions after round is totally cool and I encourage it bc it's great for learning, but aggressive post-rounding is not okay. If you have to wonder whether something qualifies as aggressive post-rounding, it probably does.

* Be nice! I will drop you or lower your speaker points if I think you're super rude or mean to your opponent.

* Important for nationally competitive debaters: make sure the round is something with which your opponent can engage. If you're a successful circuit debater and your opponent is a significantly less experienced JVer or novice, but you make the round inaccessible for them by spreading way too fast or running something they can't reasonably be expected to engage with, I will probably lower your speaker points and may even drop you. If you're the better debater, you should be able to win anyways :)

Updated October 2nd, 2021

bjschmitt1@hotmail.com

Formerly a varsity LD coach in Minnesota (over 10 years ago). I believe value debate is and should be distinct from policy debate. It's fine to talk about real-world implications, but more often than not, too much emphasis on solvency misses the point of what we 'ought' to do vs. what a policymaker would need to do.

Debating what we 'ought' to do should allow debaters more freedom to discuss the values behind our decision-making, instead of focusing on the practicality and implementation (that is why we have policy debate).

The function of the criteria is to help weigh the round - if you and your opponent have the same criteria, that doesn't 'wash' it out of the round - it *should* make for a cleaner debate as both sides agree on the weighing mechanism, but then you need to be really clear about how your side wins using that mechanism. If each side has a different criteria, then it is important to tell me why yours is better AND apply it throughout your case.

I appreciate a thoughtful case which is well-founded in research. I do expect the debate to focus on the core resolution; kritiks need to have a strong link.

Moderately fast speed is fine - I can keep up; but if your definition of 'spreading' is to read at an incomprehensible speed, I don't find it contributes to a healthy debate.

I decide based on the arguments on my flow - substance over style.

I competed in policy in high school and in NDT for four years in college. However, my high school years were 1981-85, and my college years were 1985-89. Since that time, I coached national level policy debate from 1992-2007, and then retired for 13 years. From 2020 through 2023 I have been coaching LD for Edina HS. I have also been a labor and employment lawyer (representing employers) since graduating from law school in 1992.

I believe debate is a verbal activity. I will flow your speeches and will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If I yell clear, slow down and ensure that I am tracking your speech. I will not flow based on your speech doc. I will consult the speech doc if there is a dispute about what evidence says.

Given my policy history, my default evaluation is policy in orientation. However, I'm more than willing to evaluate a debate based on a philosophical framework or a kritical/in-round framework. I am not a big fan of tricks debate, as I apply a Toulmin-style evaluation of arguments and expect a claim, data and warrant, and in my experience a lot of tricks debate arguments lack the data and warrant elements of a Toulmin argument. However, I do judge the debate based on the flow, and I've certainly voted on a lot of theory arguments in my time.

I think debate is a wonderful activity and I value everyone's contribution and participation. As a result I will react negatively to any conduct or argumentation that devalues or diminishes debaters. If you're rude, nasty or mean, expect me to reduce your speaker points. If your rudeness or nastiness is related to gender, race or some other protected characteristic, expert me to reduce them a lot.

I love to watch debaters having fun. It's a great activity. Try to enjoy it.

Hello! I'm a fourth-year LD debater at Eagan High School. I'm pretty traditional as a debater so I wouldn't recommend running anything too out there. In other words, stock, policy, framework > Theory, K, Tricks. With that being said, I'm good with most arguments so long as you speak relatively articulately and don't say anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. Using any of those things, being rude to your opponent, or just generally being rude will result in a big hit to speaker points. BE NICE!!

Put me on email chains: juliaschowalter@gmail.com

I won't be able to flow full-on spreading, especially online, so make sure to ask if you're planning on spreading. Fast-ish speed is fine

As for the actual judging, couple of things:

- Weigh your arguments! Without weighing it's pretty much left up to me what arguments to value and that's a pretty risky strategy

- I don't assume anything about your arguments and don't make connections for you. If you don't articulate it/it isn't on the flow, I don't evaluate it.

- EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND. If you forget to extend your case in the 1AR, I won't evaluate any of your impacts in the 2AR. Any extension is better than none, but the clearer you extend the easier it'll be for me to weigh.

- I don't flow cross-ex but it is binding

email: applevalleyjohny@gmail.com

Yo, I'm John Schwartz, a varsity debater at Apple Valley High School. I've debated a variety of styles, and understand all genres of arguments.

I enjoy seeing cases with unique frameworks, as well as policy style util debates (plans vs. CPs/PICs/DAs/etc.). I enjoy the more reasonable theory debates, but not the more frivolous ones (for example, I will be a lot more responsive to a condo, disclosure, or PICs theory debate then I would be to an AFC one). Do NOT read super tricky arguments (like truth testing, or a prioris), and while I enjoy critical-style arguments I suggest staying away from Ks given I am pretty unfamiliar with the literature.

The debate I want to see is one where there is a lot of clash, with each debater engaging in a lot of evidence comparison and counter-arguments.

I'm cool with a good amount of speed (i.e. spreading is cool, but slow down a fair amount on tags and analytics), unless your opponent is traditional. Then, slow down to their speed.

For K or phil debaters, it would be really cool to see arguments unique the lit of the topic we're on.

When evaluating the round I will especially value to the arguments that have been thoroughly weighed.

Lastly, if you're up against a lay debater, make sure your arguments are structured in a way where a traditional debater would understand the format of the case, and don't read progressive-exclusive arguments.

Put me on your email chains at jtschwen03@gmail.com and jts172@georgetown.edu

For people just scanning their judge’s paradigm a minute before round starts, I’m a flow judge, but I don’t have a ton of experience with progressive debate. Read Sections 1 and 2 for a bit more information.

If you’re a Novice, scroll to Section 3.

If you’re just here to pump up your Speaks, what you’re looking for is in Section 20.

For why this paradigm is over 5,000 words long, scroll down to Section 21 TL;DR, it's mostly satire on the state of PF debate, but was also pretty fun to write.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1: Background

1.1 I spent my first two years in Congressional Debate before switching to Public Forum for my last two years, all for Chanhassen High School in Minnesota. I got plenty of experience in both local and circuit debates there - my partner and I reached the 12th round of NSDA Nationals in my Junior year and got to semifinals at the Harvard National Forensics Tournament in my senior year.

1.2 I’m usually quite up to date on current events, and I’ve got plenty of background knowledge for most resolutions, but don’t assume that I will be going into the round with a complete understanding of your arguments. If I truly know nothing about a resolution, I’ll read up on it before I judge, so don’t worry about having to spend too much time on laying a foundation.

1.3 For a three-sentence summary of my judging preferences, I am most definitely a flow judge, but I have limited tolerance for blatant flow abuse (see the sections on speed [4], evidence [9], progressive debate [11], and a few other places for more details). More than likely, I’ll be able to understand and adjust to your style of debate, but I will always appreciate someone adjusting to me in return. I don’t have a ton of experience with progressive debate, but can understand if you want to run it.

1.4 As for my personal life, I currently attend Georgetown University in Washington D.C., majoring in Regional and Comparative Studies (concentrating on International Law in West Europe and Asia) with minors in Mathematics and German. I love geography, which means I will appreciate geographically accurate arguments and will be able to sniff out any questionable ones. This is true as well (though to a lesser extent) for history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: Buffet of TL;DRs

2.1 Organization of this Paradigm- This paradigm is split into sections. Each one (usually) gives you information about one particular part of my judging preferences. Each of those sections is split into subsections. For example, Section 9 Subsection 2 would be found at the point marked 9.2. You can also just scroll down and find whatever individual part you want, I won’t be offended if you don’t use this organizational system.

2.2 Organization of these TL;DRs- The subsection number of the items within Section 2 corresponds to the section number where you can find more detail on each item. I know this seems convoluted, but trust me. There is enough in this paradigm that this organization system makes it easier for everyone.

2.3 I just need to write something here so 2.2 is actually true

2.4 Speed- I’m fine with almost all levels of speed (as I’m not too slow of a debater myself), but the faster the argument, the more likely it is that I miss it. Be strategic with your speed.

2.5 Timing- I will not flow any argument started past time. Don’t feel like you have to cut yourself off mid-sentence, though.

2.6 Debate Lingo- Go ham. If you can understand it, chances are that I can too. Extra kudos if you correctly use the phrase “uniqueness controls the direction of the link.” However, I’ll never vote you down because you didn’t use enough lingo.

2.7 Roadmaps- I love a good off-time roadmap, but they aren’t a replacement for signposting. Combine them for maximum efficacy.

2.8 Extensions- Give the tag and the internal warrant. I won’t count your case as extended if you just run through all of the card names in 10 seconds. Defense is somewhat sticky.

2.9 Evidence- I won’t go out of my way to intervene, but if the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of a piece of evidence is the deciding factor in a round, I will check your evidence. Bad bracketing, bad paraphrasing, or in-speech misrepresentation will have the evidence dropped from the round. If you paraphrase and don’t have cut cards available to send, I won’t consider the evidence anything more than an assertion.

2.10 Cross-examination- I don’t flow, but I listen. You can’t win off of doing well in cross-fire, or lose off of doing poorly, but you can definitely lose off of one where you come off as mean while trying to “win.”

2.11 Progressive Debate- I have relatively little experience with progressive debate. I’m fine with most Theory and can put up with a good K, but I don’t want to see you running it solely to win a round.

2.12 Tricks- Would be funny to watch, maybe not to judge. I have no experience with them.

2.13 Speech Docs- I don’t care if you share them or not, as long as it is mutual.

2.14 Tech > Truth- The flow is king. If it’s warranted, I’ll happily vote off of any argument. Anything not responded to is perfectly true in my eyes.

2.15 Presentation- I vote off of content, but I can appreciate good presentation.

2.16 Decision Disclosure- If someone in the round objects to it, I won’t disclose. Otherwise, I will.

2.17 Presumption- I don’t automatically presume in any way, but I’m cool with most presumption arguments as long as they’re warranted decently.

2.18 DAs- Framing these as turns makes more sense in most PF rounds, but I’ll be fine if you don’t. Don’t make them thinly-veiled counterplans, though.

2.19 Back Half- First Summary is the last spot for new arguments. Past that, you should be extending, weighing, and comparing. The only exception is weighing— you can have new weighing in Second Summary and new responses to it in First Final.

2.20 Speaker Points- Speaker points are a canvas, and I am Picasso. Scroll all the way down for specifics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3: Novice PF

3.1 Props to all of you. The first year of debate is a scary one. With that said, I have two words that guide how I will be voting in your round: Clarity and Consistency.

3.2 If you show an understanding of your arguments and evidence, awesome. If you show an understanding of your opponents’ arguments and evidence as well, it’d be hard for you not to win.

3.3 I want to see a clear line of reasoning between each of your speeches. If you focus on one thing in your Summary, I want you to focus on it even more in your Final Focus.

3.4 You are competing with your opponents, not fighting with them. Be nice and understanding while staying focused and assertive.

3.5 If possible, try to do the things I talk about in the Varsity section, but don’t feel pressured to entirely alter how you debate just because you read this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If what is above wasn’t enough for you, venture forth at your own risk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4: SPEED

4.1 I flow on a computer. This makes it easier for me to flow fast arguments, but it doesn’t make me a superhuman. Feel free to go up to around 280-300 wpm without too much of an issue, but the closer you get to it the more likely you are to say some things that I don’t get on the flow. Go above 320 wpm at your own peril. If you’re speaking at a speed anywhere in the 300 wpm ballpark, send a speech doc to me and your opponents and I’ll be more than happy.

4.2 Abusive speed will make you lose. Don’t go fast against opponents that are newer to debate, speak English as a second language, or have some other limitation as to how easily they can flow and respond to your arguments. If you go fast against those types of opponents, I’m voting for them. When in doubt, just speak at the same speed as your opponents. I will never dock your speaks for going slower than I think you need to, but I will if I see you going significantly faster than you need to.

4.3 Speed is situational. It only belongs in some rounds. If it’s semifinals at a circuit tournament and your opponents just read 13 turns, a DA, and a K, go right ahead with some light-speed frontlines. If it’s a prelim round at a local tournament, I better not be seeing anything close to that.

4.4 Slow down to emphasize. If an argument is important enough to win off of, it’s worth slowing down for. Slam through your non-uniques and delinks as fast as you wish, but for huge turns or OVs or anything like that, slow down a bit and make them centerpieces of your speech. There is very little I hate more content-wise in a debate round than someone spending <10 seconds on a poorly-implicated argument in their Rebuttal then attempting to blow it up in the back half.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5: TIMING

5.1 I don’t flow anything said overtime. If you want to add a sentence or two to close off your speech, I’m fine with you going 5 or so seconds over, but don’t toe the line too hard. I will always prefer a speech that ends 5 seconds too early to a speech that ends 5 seconds too late.

5.2 I’ll trust your timing first. I will have my own timer running, but if you show that yours was at a different (but still reasonable) time then I’ll add that last thing to the flow. None of this is too complicated, I just don’t want to see huge overtime monologues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 6: DEBATE LINGO

6.1 I love some good words. If it helps keep your speeches concise, you can use as much debate lingo as you want. Remember- correctly using the exact phrase “Uniqueness controls the direction of the link” gets you extra kudos (and maybe some speaker points too). The only area in which my lingo is lacking would be some progressive arguments.

6.2 Lingo is not an excuse to be unapproachable. Similar to speed, there is a time and place for debate lingo. Don’t use it against novice or E2L debaters. When it’s a tech round with tech opponents then you can let it loose. See 4.2 and 4.3 for more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 7: ROADMAPS

7.1 Please Roadmap whenever possible. It makes it much easier for me to flow everything you say, which, in turn, makes it easier for you to win. Even if the road map is just “I’ll start on my opponents’ case then move on to mine,” that is still worth saying, as I know not to expect any huge curveballs. If you’re going to be running any Theory, Ks, OVs, DAs, or weighing frameworks, let me know in the roadmap whether I should be flowing it on your case, your opponents’, or somewhere on its own.

7.2 Roadmaps are not replacements for signposting. Give me the structure of your speech in your roadmap then stick to it. Let me know when you’re switching gears, and I’ll look at the roadmap to see where you’re going next. A speech with a good roadmap and solid signposting will be very, very easy to flow (and give you some awesome speaks).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 8: EXTENSIONS

8.1 Extend the card names and the internal warrants. Saying “Extend Lastname 21” won’t get you or the evidence anywhere, as I likely will not have every single one of your card names written down and ready to extend. Tell me what the card says and why and combine that with your frontlining to create a great combination between narrative and tech debate.

8.2 Defense is sticky (though good debaters still extend it). If a piece of defense (especially terminal) is dropped in Second Rebuttal, I’d like to hear it mentioned in First Summary, as that makes the round a lot more cohesive. However, if you would rather treat defense as fully sticky, I’ll do the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 9: EVIDENCE

9.1 If your opponents don’t make an issue of it, I won’t. I’m not interventionist enough to warrant me personally seeking out your evidence to check its truthfulness, but if the issue comes up during the round, I’ll probably want to check it out. If the evidence says what you say it does, you’ll probably win, if it doesn’t, you’ll get a loss and two 25s.

9.2 Cut cards are always preferable. NSDA rules require them to be readily available, so if you are paraphrasing, be prepared to send the cut version when asked. Trust me, I can tell when you try to cut it on the fly. Paraphrasing or cutting that misconstrues the evidence will get you a loss and two 25s. If your cut or paraphrased version is fine but you misrepresented it in speeches, you’ll get the same. So will bracketing that changes a source’s conclusion or certainty of it (such as removing the phrase “experts say” to present something as fact or changing the word “could” to “will”).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 10: CROSS-EXAMINATION

10.1 Cross is your chance to show a depth of knowledge. I won’t flow it, but if your opponents make an important concession, mention it in a speech. If you obviously don’t understand your arguments, I’ll best be able to notice it during Cross. If you have a solid grasp of your arguments, I’ll also be able to notice that.

10.2 Be assertive, not aggressive. If you monologue for 1:00+, I will not like you. 1:30+ will make me actively dislike you. 2:00+ means I probably won’t listen to you for the rest of the round. It is safe to say that you are accomplishing the opposite of what you want if you do any of these. Monologuing is not the only type of assholery in Cross, though. Don’t blatantly disregard your opponent, raise your voice, or throw chairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 11: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE

11.1 I was a content debater, but I’ll listen to and vote off of progressive arguments. I barely dabbled in Theory, and my only experience with Ks came outside of official rounds. I can usually tell when someone is running a progressive argument just to win the round, and I don’t support that usage of it. Progressive debate exists to promote positive norms within the activity. With that said, I’d rather you not run it against new debaters or someone obviously unversed in progressive debate unless they say something super horrible. All progressive arguments based on a violation by your opponents should be read in the speech immediately after the violation.

11.2 I am more perceptive to some progressive arguments than others. On these lists, the higher the number out of 10, the more I support the norm it promotes. If you are well-versed in progressive arguments, I expect you to find issue with a lot of what I say below this, as I am essentially gut-checking any of the arguments that I haven’t personally hit, heard, or run.

Theory:

11.3 Paraphrasing: 8 I’ll usually just drop the evidence, but feel free to argue that I should drop the debater. It has to be pretty malicious for me to actually vote on that, though.

11.4 Disclosure: 5 If you run Theory because your opponents weren’t already disclosed on the wiki, I probably won’t vote for you. If you run Theory because your opponents refused to disclose after you asked, I might vote for you.

11.5 30s: 4 If it’s a tournament where speaks matter as a tiebreaker, I’m cool with giving 30s to everyone in the round if someone runs this. If speaks don’t matter in the tournament, you shouldn’t be running this anyways.

11.6 Trigger Warnings: 9 I'd like trigger warnings for anything even toeing the line of being an issue. If you don’t give one, I’m very open to your opponents running Theory. If you do give one but don’t give your opponents adequate ability and time to opt out or in, I will also be open to Theory.

11.7 Any type of Abuse: 11 If you misgender, belittle, insult, or severely disrespect your opponents in any other way, it would take a miracle for you to get speaks above 25, much less win. If this happens to you, please run Theory. I will vote on it.

11.8 Topicality: 3 Topicality should usually just be an argument used as a response, but you can turn it into Theory if you think it is egregious enough. No guarantee on me voting on it.

Kritiks:

11.9 Capitalism: 5 This is a pretty easy K for me to understand, but it is also one of the most broad. I’ll be more open to Cap Ks that are based off of your opponents actively supporting capitalism and less open to Cap Ks that are based off of your opponents merely mentioning the existence of capitalist societies or trends.

11.10 Neoliberalism: 4 Mention Reagan or Thatcher during your Neoliberalism K to get some brownie points from me. Your opponents have to be advocating for neoliberal policies for me to care about the K, though. Don’t run a Neoliberalism K when a Cap K would fit better.

11.11 Anthropocentrism: 4 This is a super interesting argument, but there is a very specific type of round in which it belongs. Judging a round with a properly-used Anthropocentrism K would be a lot of fun and probably get you a win. See 12.1 for my general attitude towards arguments I understand little to nothing about.

11.12 Securitization: 6 If your opponents are sufficiently promoting brinkmanship or problematically analyzing a conflict zone, a Security K is worthwhile if you know how to run it. I’m much more receptive to Security Ks that pertain to some sort of offensive action rather than to simple threat analysis.

11.13 Word PIKs: 8 This has some intersection with a lot of Theory, but if your opponents say a word that is bad for whatever reason (especially slurs) I will probably vote off of even a decently-run K.

11.14 High Theory: 3 I have little to no knowledge of this type of K. I think it’d be cool to see someone run, but that doesn’t mean I’ll automatically understand it or vote off of it. I know there are only a few teams that even know how to run this, so forgive me for not putting this super high on my priority list for what to learn. See 12.1 for my general attitude towards arguments I understand little to nothing about.

11.15 Identity Politics: 5 I’m guessing that these types of arguments will become increasingly popular in PF as time goes on, and that’s cool with me. As with most other Ks, if it’s run well, I’ll vote on it. Nothing too much more to say.

11.16 K-Affs: 6 In my opinion, K-Affs are more impressive than they are convincing. You have to be very skillful to make me evaluate a K that is barely based (or not based at all) on something your opponents said or did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 12: TRICKS

12.1 As said above, just don’t. I have a whopping zero experience with Tricks, meaning that you will lose me very quickly if you run them. It’d probably be pretty amusing to watch a round where they are used, but I’d rather not judge one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 13: SPEECH DOCS

13.1 As long as it’s mutual, I don’t care. I touch on this in the Speed and Theory sections, so check those places for how speech docs relate to each of those things. If you want speech docs for the entire round for a specific reason (medical or otherwise) just ask your opponents and I expect them to agree. If they do not, you haven’t automatically won, but you’re very close.

13.2 Send yours when asked. Just as I hope your opponents will disclose when you ask, I hope that you will disclose when you are asked. As mentioned in the speed section, please send docs automatically if you are thinking of speaking even in the ballpark of 300 wpm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 14: TECH VS. TRUTH

14.1 I prioritize Tech over Truth. Saying something “isn’t true” is not a response I will flow. If something is conceded, even if it is real-world ridiculous, I will flow it through. My job as a judge is not to vote for the arguments I agree with, but to vote for the better debaters (if you warrant it, though, I’ll act as a policy maker or whatever else it is you want).

14.2 Won Theory/K > Won Offense/Weighing > Won Terminal Defense > Won Mitigatory Defense > Won Presumption > Better Presentation > My Gut is the order in which I prioritize arguments. Something conceded is something automatically won. This is very conditional on whether or not something is actually won, so don’t lean on a single argument you’re not doing too well on just because it’s higher on this list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 15: PRESENTATION

15.1 I may be a pretty tech judge, but I can appreciate good presentation. It will take a lot to have it win you the round, but it can definitely get you on my good side. If you are funny, approachable, respectful, and understanding (or even a few of those), I guarantee that I will be much happier as a judge. If it’s a round that doesn’t change whether you break or not, I’d love to see some playful debating. One of my favorite rounds I ever debated in also involved one of the most ridiculous Crossfires I have ever seen.

15.2 It is very hard to charm me into voting for you. I can think you’re an awesome person and debater, but if you’re losing the flow, you still lost. This has some crossover with me being Tech>Truth, which you can see more about in 14.2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 16: DECISION DISCLOSURE

16.1 I will default towards disclosing unless an outside force changes that. That force could be tournament rules or debater preference. No matter what, I’ll try to have the ballot in for your round as fast as humanly possible, even at tournaments without disclosure. The way I see it, there are 3 possible things I could do. First, I could disclose both the decision and my RFD. This is my preference. Second, I could disclose just the decision but save the RFD for Tabroom. If you keep it under wraps, I’ll do this even at tournaments without disclosure. Lastly, I could not disclose anything, which I’ll only do if a debater in the round asks me not to for any reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 17: PRESUMPTION

17.1 I don’t automatically presume in any way. I am open to absolutely any presumption argument, but I’m most receptive to presuming the 1st speaking team or the Negation. Don’t go into the round assuming I’ll do either of those, though.

17.2 I prefer content over presumption if I can. This may seem obvious, considering what presumption is, but I’ll prefer even blippy, underwarranted, and under implicated offense to presumption. The only way presumption arguments can really hurt you in my eyes is through using time on them that could be used elsewhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 18: DISADVANTAGES/DAS (OR ADVANTAGES IF YOU’RE AFF)

18.1 I’m fine with them. For most rounds (especially panel rounds with more lay judges) you should probably be framing them as Turns, but if I’m your only judge, I won’t mark you down for calling them what they are.

18.2 If you want to win off of it, spend time on it. DAs and As are not something to try to shove into a 10 second scrap of time at the end of your Rebuttal. They can, and should, be a place where you elaborate on your internal warrants. In general, I scrutinize the link chains of DAs and As about as rigorously as I scrutinize the link chains of your in-case contentions, as they are separate contentions in all but name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 19: BACK HALF

19.1 One word: Consistency. I do not want to be blindsided by anything in the back half. The job of the Final Focus is to write my ballot for me, and to a lesser extent, this is also the goal of the Summary. I will not be flowing any new information read during these speeches, bar a few things- you can obviously frontline in First Summary and, to a certain extent, backline in Second Summary. You can give new weighing in both First and Second Summary, and new responses to that new weighing in First Final Focus.

19.2 Collapse well. I do not want to judge a messy debate, and a lack of collapsing is the easiest way to make the round messy. I will vote for one clean contention over two dirty ones 95 times out of 100. A clean contention is a whole lot easier to weigh off of, so even if your opponents are going for three contentions, I still think it is smarter for you to go for just one and outweigh them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 20: SPEAKER POINTS

20.1 Here it is- the moment you’ve all been waiting for. Speaker Points. Some of these are not super strict- I probably won’t be exactly tallying everyone's speaks at a 0.1 interval. It’s safe to treat these as guidelines more than hard rules.

WAYS TO EARN OR LOSE THEM:

20.2 Roadmaps-

+0.2 speaks for a Summary that has a roadmap you follow

+0.1 speaks for a Rebuttal or Final Focus that has a roadmap that you follow.

0 speaks for any speech with a roadmap you decently follow

-0.1 speaks for any speech without a roadmap where it is needed

-0.2 speaks for any speech with a roadmap that you blatantly ignore

20.3 Phraseology-

+0.3 speaks for correctly using the phrase “uniqueness controls the direction of the link” in round

-0.3 speaks for incorrectly using the above phrase in round

+0.2 speaks for saying “that’s why we’re debating [insert resolution here] and not cats versus dogs”

+0.1 speaks each time you call the aff contentions “protentions”

+1 speaks for both debaters on your team for referencing the length of my paradigm to show you read this

20.4 Jokes-

+1 speaks for making a joke that is honestly funny

+0.5 speaks for a pun or joke so horrible that I laugh

-0.1 speaks for a pun or joke that sounds too forced

20.5 References-

+1 speaks for using a quote from Pathfinder in Apex Legends

+0.5 speaks for a reference to Your Lie in April, Bunny Girl Senpai, A Silent Voice, Hololive, the Witcher 3, Elden Ring, or Fallout

+0.3 speaks for a reference to most mainstream shows, movies, or games

20.6 Cross-

-0.5 speaks for monologuing for 45 seconds and -0.1 for every 10 seconds after

+0.3 speaks for making a tastefully absurd claim in Cross (NOT in speeches)

20.7 Evidence-

+1 speaks for everyone in the round for sharing all case and speech docs on the email chain

-0.5 speaks for taking more than a reasonable amount of time to send evidence (30-45 seconds max for 1 piece of evidence, more time for more evidence)

Auto-25 and probably a lost round for blatantly misconstruing evidence

-1 speaks for both partners for disingenuous bracketing

-2 speaks for both partners for bad paraphrasing

20.8 Other Stuff-

+1 speaks for proving that you emailed my former PF partner something especially obnoxious (emviolette@icloud.com)

+0.5 speaks for emailing me geography trivia before the round

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 21: Commentary on this Paradigm

21.1 Yes, I know that this is unnecessary, convoluted, and overwhelming. When I joined PF, I was close to quitting early on because of things like this, and I entirely realize that I am part of that problem. I also know that paradigms are not a spot for the judges to take the spotlight, but rather to help debaters have the best experience possible. This is why I have shorter versions of the entire paradigm easily accessible at the beginning. However, with that said, I do believe that a paradigm like this can serve a purpose.

21.2 Undoubtedly, part of it is humor- it’s satire on the state of Public Forum and debate as a whole, as the fact that it’s even possible to write this much about judging a category (much less competing in one) is unbelievable.

21.3 Another part of this was just me putting thoughts on paper. Writing this paradigm was invaluable in helping myself to understand my own preferences as I transitioned from competing to judging.

21.4 Above both of these, though, is the fact that this paradigm quickly became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer I made it, the more certain I was that I should make it even longer. There is a non-zero chance that I don’t even end up judging a significant amount of tournaments, making this entire thing essentially moot. If that comes true, at least it was pretty fun to make.

Congratulations. You made it. If you read the whole thing, I would like to formally apologize. If you read only the parts you cared about, I understand. If you scrolled down just to see how long this was, I see how it is.

Hi, I use she/they pronouns

Experience: I debated LD all throughout high-school, I mainly did traditional but I dabbled (and I say that generously) in circuit before. I also have a general idea of other debate events (policy, PF, Congress). I have been coaching speech and debate for three years.

LD

Speed: It’s fine, if you’re going to spread I’d like to be on the email chain.

Disclosure of round result: Yes, so long as it's okay with all participants, but I won't disclose speaker points.

Framework: If you're doing an extremely complex, esoteric framework, I expect that you can explain it well. If you don't know the arguments you shouldn't be running them. Please be sure to slow down on tags. Please impact clearly. Even if framework gets conceded at the beginning of the round I still want to see how it interacts in the debate. I will never evaluate a framework that validates oppression, discrimination, death etc.

Ks: Make sure your RoB is clear and actually feasible. I am not a fan of K affs. Please try to run something topical. I am not well-versed in K literature.

Theory: I like tech over truth. If there is a legitimate abuse in the debate space then go for theory and I will 100% vote on it. Please don't just run 3 theory shells for time sucks. Slow down a little on RVIs please. In saying that, please don't make me do too much judge intervention.

CPs/Plans: Make sure it's topical, make sure it's competitive. I'm fine with conditional CPs. Slow down on the plan text please and be sure its well-explained.

DAs/Advs: Make sure it's topical. If you want to run it as a normal contention I do not care.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author. If you don’t read credentials that is fine.

PF

Speed: I’ll tolerate it to an extent. No spreading. I don’t judge on presentation but I think PF is meant to be accessible to the public and spreading doesn’t really promote that.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author, though I prefer to have credentials too. I only really call cards if it is contested in-round/it is absolutely integral to my decision. I will give 3 minutes (with the exception of uncontrollable circumstances such as bad wifi or a paywall) to procure called evidence before I start docking speaks. If it takes more than 10 minutes (again aside from uncontrollable circumstances) I will drop the card and any other cards from that author.

Standards: I expect clear, concrete arguments for why I should prefer your standard. Link all arguments to your standard and tell me why it matters. I want all voters to be cleanly extended through to the final focus.

Theory/CP/Kritiks: I don't like them at all in PF. If your opponent makes an argument about it being abusive, I’ll likely vote on it. If you’re running them I expect your arguments to be well-explained and cleanly extended.

Cross: Be respectful. I flow it and consider it binding. However, I will only evaluate what is said in cross on the ballot if it is brought up in a speech.

Arguments: You can go for just about anything though I really really would prefer it to be topical. For me to vote an argument I want the uniqueness, impact and link to be extended. I won’t vote on any argument without a warrant.

General

If you do anything to intentionally disrespect someone I will automatically drop you. Let's keep debate a safe space for everyone.

Trigger warnings! If you don’t provide a trigger warning for a topic that needs one I will dock speaks or drop the argument depending on how severe the content is.

gatlingdoescollege@gmail.com for any email chains

she/her

I did 4 years of traditional LD in North Dakota and 2 years of APDA at Columbia. Consider me an expert in traditional debate and philosophy and as having a basic working knowledge of circuit debate.

In general, don’t do anything harmful, I will tank your speaks and vote you down. For traditional LD debates, the winner’s offense links to the winning criterion and outweighs their opponent’s offense that links. In circuit debates, I still want some sort of framework/weighing that I can use to evaluate impacts, and I will plug those impacts in accordingly. This can be basically anything, as long as it’s not harmful.

As I become less and less involved with debate, I become less interested in the technical side. I will still evaluate the round based purely on the arguments made, and will try not to intervene in any but the most egregious of cases. Nevertheless, I question the notion that we can or should be a tabula rasa in or out of debate.

In terms of speed, I’m comfortable with anything ~<200, more than that and you should send a doc.

If you are interested in my personal biases, know that I'm generally more sympathetic to ideas that fall under the "identity politics" umbrella. In high school, I ran a lot of Kant so I really like to see deontological arguments done well. I will of course do everything possible to remain impartial in spite of these biases, but they are there.

Hey guys, I'm Molly (she/her). I'm a sophomore at Boston College not involved in college debate but competed in LD for 3 years in high school in MN. I mainly competed on the traditional circuit but did 2-3 nat circuit tournaments a year. I'm not a lay judge but I probably haven't read the topic lit and I definitely haven't read your critical lit. With that being said, I read the news, go to college, and generally know what's going on with the world. Regardless of what you're running you need to explain your argument. I don’t care if you're novice or national champ, you're not above claim warrant impact.

Be kind, but you don't have to be nice. Oppression is bad, full stop. Otherwise say whatever you want, but again, you need to be able to explain it. Spread at your own risk - I can keep up to a reasonable extent and I'll say clear three times before I give up flowing. Extra speaks for jokes and fun and having a personality. If you have questions ask in round or email me: mollynwelch@gmail.com. Good luck!

My pronouns are she/her/hers. My background: competed in PF throughout high school, have spent the past 4 years judging both PF and LD.

Have fun! Take the round seriously, but also realize that you are not actually shaping world policy, so be chill. My main things I want to see in a round:

- be a good person in general: no -isms, don’t be rude to opponents, don’t steal prep or go way over time

- come prepared: have plenty of evidence and produce it quickly (evidence matters lots to me), know your speeches well and be ready for cross. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if they are hotly contested. Summarizing is okay, just be honest with it and have the full card ready right away.

- guide me through the round: narrow down to key voters, strategically collapse as needed, tell me where and why I should vote for you, and please for the love of god weigh. DO NOT say 'extend John Doe '15' without telling me what John Doe '15 says. I don't flow the name of the card, I flow the evidence itself.

-speaking skills: eye contact, pace of speaking (I am okay with spreading, however realize that if I cannot understand you, you will loose speaker points), enunciation, clarity, etc - especially important in constructive, since you should know the speech well enough to give it well. Also, in cross, please don't yell or talk over your opponent. Just be polite.

- I vote off the flow, essentially, so make my flow clear. That being said, a note on cross-fire - I love cross-fire, and as a result I very rarely flow crossfire. Therefore if something important comes up in cross, bring it up in a speech to be sure that it makes it on my flow.

A note on theory: I'm not a huge fan of theory. Unless there is super clear abuse, then I will likely not vote for theory. Also, I will never ever buy disclosure theory. Debate is about the resolution, stick to it.

Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make debate more accessible to you before the round-- trigger/content warnings are appreciated in making debate a more accessible space. If you have any questions before the round, ask away. Looking forward to a great round!