Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

email chain - please start one and use it: darren.ch12@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. reach out for questions/anything to make the debate more accessible. I respond to emails.

in my 3rd season as an assistant coach at the Blake School (MN) but I spend most of my time working a non-debate job meaning I do a lot less topic research than I used to

cornell '21 - ndt qual

carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy

excited to watch you debate!

tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.

That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing

top level:

---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.

---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others

---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances

---very facially expressive; don't mind me

---slow down for theory

---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.

---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.

---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.

---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)

---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)

---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.

---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I woiuldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.

---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.

public forum:

---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.

---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!

---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.

---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.

---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.

---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the rez in every instance.

---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.

---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.

---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.

---theory thoughs:

I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.

1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.

2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.

3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.

4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens

5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.

6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.

7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold

9/13/21 - minor updates post-grad + striking cards irreversible + whole rez

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.

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

He/Him/His

gerlachgus11@gmail.com

Debated PF at Lakeville South for 5 years. Now a junior at Washington University in St. Louis.

General:

Warranting/weighing determines the result of most rounds.

I flow fast. I won't flow off a doc and will clear you if I can't understand.

Flex prep, open cross, etc. is ok with me if it’s ok with both teams.

Evidence:

I feel completely comfortable dropping teams for bad evidence ethics – even if it’s not a voting issue in round.

Email chains > google docs/any other method of sending evidence. Please don't make me dig through a google doc.

Produce cut cards quickly upon request.

Rounds with lots of time between speeches due to long evidence exchanges are annoying. Sending full speech docs remedies this and makes it easier to check back on bad evidence. To that end, rounds where full speech docs are sent by both teams will be rewarded with substantially higher speaker points.

PF paradigm:

I’m a tech judge.

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

Progressive Arguments:

I'm comfortable in my ability to effectively adjudicate progressive debate in PF.

A few considerations:

1) Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

2) I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

3) Maddie Cook has a more comprehensive section on progressive arguments. I agree with her.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT. You can't win an argument if you don't extend it. If you don't extend your argument, it is like there is terminal defense on it. Frontlining your argument and then failing to extend it is a waste of time. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT.

TLDR: Think of me like a traditional PF judge/someone who has been coaching for 20 years. Quality>Quantity. Logic>Evidence

Experience: I debated in Public Forum for Valley International Prep. I quartered at the TOC

How I evaluate rounds: Your primary concern should be winning and extending your argument. That is a prerequisite to any impact weighing you want me to consider. Generally, I think most of the impact weighing teams do is fairly elementary and ineffective. I don't need you to tell me you outweigh on scope because you affect more people. I think link ins, short circuits, and pre recs are far more valuable than impact weighing.

Be Clear and Comparative: Want to make my decision easy? Implicate your responses. Don't assume I know if defense is mitigatory or terminal. Tell me, "This functions as terminal defense to my opponents case because..." Do comparative analysis. If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round.

Technical stuff:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline ALL turns and terminal defense on the argument they are going for. Defense isn't sticky. Any defense that you're going to read in final focus should be in summary.

Overviews?

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense (oUr tHiRd cOnTeNtIoN iS...)

Don't read it. I won't vote on it. I prefer actual clash to random DAs.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

Speed: Keep it under 225 WPM. Quality>Quantity

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. That said, a response has to exist.

Take your opponents at their highest ground. Don't lie to me. If they responded to your argument, don't say that they conceded it. If they read a warrant or an impact, don't tell me that they didn't. That's lazy, disingenuous, and bad debating. You'll do a lot better by saying, "Even if you believe everything my opponents said, we STILL win the round," and then weighing your arguments against the best iteration of theirs.

Theory? Sure. Paragraph theory is fine. I don't need it in shell form. If you call for evidence and it's really miscut, I WILL vote on an evidence ethics shell. I default to RVIs and I think teams should be able to read reasonability responses.

Ks? Ehhh. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well.

Speaker Points: I will give speaker points based on your rhetorical appeal. Usually there are two different speaking styles that work pretty well. You can go the dominant route and be loud and confident. Think, "THE ROUND IS OVER." Or you can go the calm, quieter, confident route. Think, "The round breaks down pretty simply." Give me some alliteration or a catchy phrase and you'll probably get a 30. I probably won't give anyone below a 28 unless you explicitly do something I say not to do in my paradigm or say something problematic/offensive

Other Things:

1. I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

2. Please come to the round preflowed. If both debaters are in round, and you're wasting time preflowing, I'll take a speaker point off.

3. I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says.

4. I'll try to nod if I like/agree with what you're saying and frown if I don't. As a debater, the facial expressions of judges always helped me know what to go for and what to drop. I also just think that generally, reading the way people are responding to what you are saying and making adjustments when necessary is a valuable life skill, so I will help you do that.

5. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm open to creativity. For example, if you think that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

I debated at Marist. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: aeovadje@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. If your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I can't really handle speed anymore (I'm rusty sorry lol), but you can speak a bit fast.

Theory/Kritiks

I'll only vote for paraphrasing bad, disclosure good, or if your opponent does something atrocious.

I don't like judging K's tbh.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

this is my most up to date paradigm:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=123673

Was in PF for 3 years and I competed on the local and national circuit. Flow judge.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework. PLEASE COLLAPSE, going for everything in round takes away from your ability to provide a narrative for your arguments. I will only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant, giving a detailed analysis, and the impacts of the argument. Extending card tags alone is not enough. Most importantly, Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important, which you might not necessarily agree with in the end. On a final note, I'm a stickler with evidence, meaning I appreciate evidence that explicitly says what it is that you are trying to communicate in the round; I appreciate logical analysis as well, but there are some instances where having both may serve to benefit you. Probably didn't cover everything so feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

• You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
• Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
• For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
• If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

• I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
• If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
• It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
• Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
• I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
• The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

Come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done pls unless you have a paradigm question

| LINE BY LINE | SIGNPOST | EXTEND ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | HAVE FUN |

-General-

• Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
• Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
• Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
• Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
• TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
• For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
• If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

• DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
• Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
• Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
• sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

• Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
• Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
• Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
• "Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
• Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.

• Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):

  • Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
  • If there's any empirics read on the argument
  • Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
  • I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
  • Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

• I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -
• If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
• If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
• If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
• Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.
• If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
• As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
• I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.

• THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:

  • I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
  • (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

• Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
• I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
• Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

• Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
• To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
• Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
• I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
• 30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Dont spread

dont abuse asking for cards to prep

be efficient with time when speakers switch / cx

s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)

I did PF for four years at Marist School.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: vance.sydneym@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important

Theory/Kritiks

I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.

I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

You do you, and I will do everything to evaluate the round equitably.

HS Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School

College Policy Debate for 4 years at the University of Michigan

Currently a 2L at Columbia Law School

Good for anything and everything as long as it's explained clearly. NGL I think all that Baudrillard and other high theory stuff is pretty w0nky slush but if you can establish a unique link, win FW, or win other parts of the critique, you taking a big W. Just make sure to explain it properly.

Make sure to impact things out -- tell me why those things matter, why they mean you win/the other team loses. I keep argument bias out of the room when I'm judging so if you want to full-send no neg fiat and make it a reason to reject the team and the other team doesn't have an answer, you taking a W.

9/25 update: Besides condo, I often don't know what's going on with theory.

2/1/23 update: If there's a nuclear war impact, I'll give extra speaks to the first time to clearly quote their favorite two lines from Megadeth's Rust in Peace... Polaris.

I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.

common question answers:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!