SCDULR Winter Middle School and High School Tournament
2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
School affiliation: Dougherty Valley Bridge
Judging/Event types: Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Congress
Years in judging: 2
I give points for creativity, good voice projection and modulation (pitch, tone), and eye contact. Please do not speed read. If I can't comprehend what you are saying because you are going too fast, I can't award you for your wonderful thoughts. I give more points for good persuasion with great confidence and fluidity. If you give good evidence and explain a good real world impact, the more points awarded.
I take lots of notes on paper.
Please time yourself so I can focus on the contents of your speech.
I am not very good in remembering all the time limits for all the different types of speech and debate, so I may need a reminder from the first speaker.
I am a parent of a middle schooler.
I appreciate if you could be respectful to everyone in the round.
I will give speaker points based on your fluency and confidence while speaking.
Feel free to ask me any clarifications before the round begins. I look forward to a good debate!
Good luck !
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence. You don't get to give someone a link and say CTRL F yourself. Prepare your evidence correctly or be dropped.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 7 years since then. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
I’m a parent but have judged var PF.
Speed: I know you have 4 minutes, but if I don’t understand what you’re saying, it doesn’t go on my flow. (This is especially important for online tournaments, where audio quality is poor).
Evidence: I’d rather you not read 15 cards and expect me to understand what you’re saying. Also have cards ready so we don’t waste any time (if there’s internet issues that’s fine, just get them ASAP)
Rebuttal: Cover both as much of your opponent’s argument as you can. Frontlining is a plus!
Impacts/Weighing: Don’t just give me arbitrary numbers and tell me that one is greater than the other. That’s boring. Tie in your evidence with your framework. Tell me why your framework should be preferred. Make offensive arguments whenever possible
Theory/K’s/progressive stuff: No (if there’s a blatant violation please just point that out)
Summary: Please extend in summary. Anything mentioned in final focus that wasn’t extended in summary will not go on my flow. Simply repeating your arguments is a waste of time though.
Good luck debaters :-)
Public Forum Paradigm
1. Respect. Show your respect and answer question directly, I accept honest answer if you are not prepared.
2. Strategy. I really like your case and rebuttal being constructed based on a framework. Direct clash. Signposting of all your contentions and break down into segments, A,B,C, etc...
3. Conclusion. In summary speech, please show me the specific reasons that your opponents are losing not just why you are winning. In final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.
I am not a huge fan of spreading. I weigh on clarity and quality not on quantity.
Enjoy yourself and have fun!