Seattle University High School Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — NSDA Campus, WA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a new lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly. In final focus establish voters because I can only judge on what you have given me so weighing mechanisms go a long way for me. Tell me explicitly why I should vote for you. Off-time road maps are allowed but it should not be more than 5 seconds. You can self time but I will also keep an overall time and if someone is going over I will stop them.
I'm excited to meet you today.
* Please pause and take a breath when you need it. I am not a fan of super fast-talking, fire hose dump of information.
* Focus on 3 or 4 points that support your case. I love judging since I get to learn so much. Dumping too much information in rapid-fire format keeps me from learning and absorbing what you are saying.
* I debated in college and enjoy watching how things have changed (and stayed the same)!
(she/her) I am a college student who is very much a lay judge so please be patient with me.
I will try to keep track of timing, but I strongly encourage you to self time.
I can handle speed, but would prefer a more reasonable pace.
Frontline in second rebuttal and first summary.
No off time road map please.
I don't flow cross fires.
(she/her) I'm a junior at the University of Washington and debated public forum for three years. You can run pretty much whatever and I'll vote off the flow. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.
Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but the speed needs to be purposeful. Nothing is worse than listening to a fast speech filled with useless info.
As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. When there is clash, I want you to clearly lay out why I need to prefer your side. Any we said/they said arguments with no analysis are going to be a wash. Use impact calc and the specific terms.
Carry your relevant cards through the entire round!! If your opponent asks about your cards, you have to be able to concisely explain the logic behind the evidence.
Make the debate fun!! Its always better to judge fun rounds, and you should be enjoying yourselves as well.
I'm the debate coach for University Prep in Seattle, WA, where I teach middle school English. This is my first year being involved with debate in any way-- I did not participate as a student. I appreciate when debaters give a roadmap of what they will do before beginning their argument, so that I can better track what's being said. I value clarity in arguments, strong examples based upon evidence, confidence in public speaking, and politeness toward the other team.
Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached PF: 9 years
Competed in PF: 1 year
Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years
Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.
Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.
Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.
Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.
1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.
2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.
3. Give me voters in Final Focus.
4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.
That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.
Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.
Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.
Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.
I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.
Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.
Things that help you win my ballot:
Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)
Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.
Things that hurt you:
Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.
Disregarding All of the above points.
Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)
Ignoring my point about evidence debate.
Insulting an opponent-personally.
TOC Specific Items
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
The speed of Delivery: Medium Speed-and clarity tends to win out more then the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.
The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)
I generally would go for either-But Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.
Role of the Final Focus
Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches
If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.
Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.
Not for PF.
With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.
You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?
Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?
Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?
No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?
If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.
Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.
My name is Jeff Chapman and my two sons attend The Overlake School in Redmond, WA. I was recently introduced to speech and debate by volunteering to be a parent judge. So far, I only judged PF and I have no policy experience.
I am looking for students to succinctly explain their points, back these up with data and give context within the big picture. It helps if you prepare a clear and well-organized case. Talking somewhat fast is okay if there are pauses and you enunciate. I take notes so a reasonable pace allows for accurate reflection of your arguments. I do not place much weight on complicated flow arguments since I take the entire set of points and rebuttals into account. It helps when you extend arguments in your summary and final focus while avoiding new points or evidence. Good to summarize both sides of the debate and explain why you think you won the debate especially tying back to evidence originally presented.
Hey everyone, I am a parent judge approaching three years of experience in both debate and speech.
I am a standard tech > truth flow judge (meaning that I will write down everything you say, even if it’s illogical). That being said, it’s your responsibility to address the fact that your opponents are running something very illogical if it happens
Signpost. Tell me what contention you will be refuting/defending at all times - this makes it so much easier for me to effectively judge
In the case of a prepared debate, be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the logic for why it is true. Debate is both evidence and logic-based, and I expect to see both
Lastly but most importantly, please keep your arguments at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying then I won’t be able to flow it
Golden Rule: Be nice to your opponent. Not too aggressive, not mean, treat each other with respect. If I see you are not being nice, I will lower your speaker points.
Also, a quick preface to this paradigm. I know it seems scary that it's so long, and I'm not here to intimidate you, I just find it fun to have a long paradigm full of references and humour, in an effort to lighten the situation (and make me look more knowledgeable HAHA). If this is scaring you, I promise that is not my intent; I'm not a scary guy (or at least, I try not to be lol). Now, read on :)
A Brief TL;DR Of This Excessively Long Paradigm
Nah, no TLDR. It's your round, make sure you read and understand everything, and please ask me if you don't. I suggest listening to Writer in the Dark by Lorde while you read this.
A Tad About Me
Hey, I'm Vivek! I'm currently a college student, and previously served as PF Captain for Mountain View-Los Altos Speech and Debate (los altos >>). I'm a massive Taylor Swift fan (like my top played artist in 2020 AND 2021 oop), which makes me sound very basic, I'm aware. In my free time, I enjoy watching TV, going on car drives, eating, spending time with friends, etc. I'm excited to see y'all debate (I may scroll through Reddit if I'm bored, jkjk); below is a (very) comprehensive paradigm on what you should be doing to tailor to my preferences.
Also, my pronouns are he/him.
Look..... just don't lie. I used to have a whole paragraph here about not lying, but honestly, if you've made it this far, you know how bad lying is. If you're going to win, do so the right way.
Do! I need to know where to flow.
Oh god yes please. So helpful.
Just answer your questions well and ask good questions. Don't give like super long answers, because that wastes the crossfire time for me and your opponents. If you want to elaborate, do so in your upcoming speech. At the same time, I don't flow crossfire, so even if you don't do so great, that will only be reflected in speaker points, not in my ballot.
If you do not list a framework, I will use your opponents'. Please list one, or you may end up regretting it.
This is important, list your impacts, it helps me know who is helping the most people in the rounds. It doesn't necessarily need to be quantified, but it could be helpful for magnitude weighing.
Taken from the paradigm of Daniel Fernandez.
Don't just make arguments and respond to your opponent's arguments; invest time to explain why the arguments you make the matter more than the arguments your opponent makes. The earlier you start and the more often you bring up your weighing, the better!
One note on weighing: I would advise teams against saying that their arguments are more likely than their opponent's arguments because the strength of weighing comes from the ability to accept your opponent's argument as true and still win the debate by demonstrating why your own argument matters more. When you argue that your argument is more probable than your opponent's, you put the added burden on yourself to win their case because you need to win a reason why their argument is not true or improbable. You should always seek win-win the debate by winning the fewest amount of arguments.
Extend your cases and refutations all the way through Final Focus so I know you didn't drop anything! If you drop something, I probably will not consider it in my final delegation. I once lost an eliminations round at Berkeley because I didn't extend one point in summary :( ......so, extend!
I'm fine if you want to go fast, just don't go super-duper spready fast (spreading = bad. sry policy and LD!). Also, have a constant pace, don't speed up and slow down - time management!! Plus, speak clearly! If I can't understand you, then I might drop your point by mistake!
Just don't be offensive, and also run creative arguments! Feel free to run squirrelly arguments. Plus if you make me laugh (yay!) I will probably raise your speaker points. :)
Some may dislike me for this (myself included), but for evidence, I follow Charles Schletzbaum's preferred rule - NSDA Public Forum Rule #7.1B. In accordance with this rule, please have the author's name and date, along with their agency (ex. for Adrian Jones from the Mayo Clinic in 2013 should become "Jones 13"). I may call for cards, so be ready for that, and don't have any sketchy/shady evidence (debate math discussed below).
Eh. I used plenty of sketchy debate math myself throughout my debate career, so I can't really fault you for this one. Just make sure it makes sense in context of the actual world, and that you have the statistics to back it up.
Taken from the paradigm from Christian Jochi Vasquez :) :
My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. I think speaker point inflation is pretty ridiculous these days. A 30 to me means that there is nothing I can critique about your speech and it was perfect [Vivek's edit – look for ways to improve speaker points below]. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:
A) Voting issues, not just blind extensions. Talked about this a bit up above. I want to hear real weighing in the round, and that means actually applying some form of calculus to the arguments. I think categorizing arguments into broader issues allows you to do this. Feel free to prove me wrong though, and I mean that sincerely.
B) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge
C) Jokes. I like to laugh and smile, but lately a lot of rounds have done the opposite for me.
Fun ways to get better speaks (for a maximum of 29.25 points - the rest must be from your actual speaking) :)
Firstly, I'd like to preface this section by saying that I want to make debating less stressful for you, and more entertaining for me. Therefore, I include this section, because it's so much fun to hear y'all's amazing references and stuff - please try to include like at least one reference to a show/movie listed below, because it's fun for everyone and makes the atmosphere just generally more comfortable. As a debater, I have never had a judge give me the option to reference entertainment I like (and believe me, there have been a lot of situations where I could have) - I want to be the judge that gives you a creative platform, so while the debating aspect is still pretty serious, you can also have a bit of fun with it :)). (note: obviously try to be tasteful where you say it, not in a random sentence about poverty and starvation in some part of the world or something lol)
- Puns in speeches (but NOT in contention titles): +0.25 speaker points
- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense: +1 speaker point.
- Reference one of these (and it must be a clear reference, I suggest making analogies to situations. It cannot just "Aang said 'war' once and so did I," have something tangible. And feel free to ask me for a review on any of these, I will let you know if it's good or not): + 1 speaker point:
ATLA; LOK (omg the ending, my heart <3); MCU (including Deadpool (1&2), AOS, Daredevil, MCU Disney+ shows; ps Daredevil is amazing); Breaking Bad/El Camino/BCS (but not s5 of bcs); DCEU (including The Flash, Arrow(s1), Doom Patrol, Gotham, Lucifer, Peacemaker); Michael Schur Universe (The Good Place, The Office, Parks & Rec, B99); Dan Harmon shows (Community, Rick and Morty); The Umbrella Academy; Star Wars (including Clone Wars, Rebels, Mandalorian, BOBF); most things Disney (ask for clarification); Disney Channel Shows! (GLC, DWAB, A&A, L&M, Jessie); Stranger Things; Kim's Convenience; NBA stuff in general; Any Harry Potter movie/books; Literally anything Rick Riordan; Crazy Rich Asians (one of my all-time fav movies, and the books are solid too); legit anything Taylor Swift (omg my fav, like....champagne problems? paper rings? illicit affairs?? we stan!! lmk if you want recs); also anything Ben Platt, he ruled my high school junior year (what is it with sad music and junior year? hmm); The Last Dance; Columbo; Once Upon a Time; New Amsterdam; Johnny English (any of the three films, but preferably #2 because that's my favorite oop); Die Hard (1,2,3,4); Feel Good (PG please); Bridgerton (I caved into the trend oop, and probably lost a few hundred braincells because of that); Rocky (1,2,3,4,5,6); Creed (1&2); The Karate Kid (I,II,III); Cobra Kai (ahh i love this show); The Queen's Gambit; You. Basically, you've got options here. It's an easy speaker point. Do it. Please. Make me laugh. I am starved for entertainment (and, yes, I see the irony).
- Rap your summary/final focus: 2 speaker points
Get 30 speaks 101
There are two ways to get a 30:
1. Roast your opponent's case. However, not just a simple, boring roast, it needs to be a really unique, brutal comment. Again, DO NOT attack your opponent personally in any way – I would never advocate for that. If you're going to attempt this, go for their arguments. Also, I decide whether your roast is 30 points-worthy.
Hmmm, theory and K's and similar stuff are very interesting, but I have no real idea on how to weigh them in context of the round lol. I completely understand Abigail Spencer's gender K, and do agree that is a problem in public forum; if such a situation (or other situations with similar severity) arises, definitely feel free to address it. However, don't run theory or a K just for the fun of it, as it will probably backfire on you. If there really is a legitimate reason to run the K or the theory, then of course I encourage it, but if not, then just don't.
Eh. As a competitor, I understand wanting a judge to disclose. Therefore, I will try my best to disclose; however, if I'm just not feeling it, I may not disclose, and that's no reflection on your abilities to debate, I'm probably just having my own personal reservations to doing so (which can and will be influenced by numerous external factors, not limited to the round).
If I'm judging you in Parli, LD, or Policy, I probably have no clue how to judge your round lol. Parli, I can get by (preferably keep the theory to a minimum). For LD I can also sort of understand, but weighing the morality aspect of the round can be confusing, as PF doesn't have anything like that. Policy..... I have no clue mate. I just hope that nobody assigns me policy rounds (hint hint tab).
Extra! (Though probably also helpful to read)
Don't title your contentions with something punny, like "Big Bad BRI" (from the BRI topic in Septober 2019). As much as I like puns, preferably not in your contention titles, as I want to know what the contention is about. If you can find other places to incorporate puns/jokes, then feel free to do so!
Also, please don't start your speeches with "I'd like to thank the judge for this round, I'd like to thank my opponents yadda yadda yadda" because it's so, so, so infuriatingly pretentious.
For all intents and purposes, I am a flow judge, but definitely also go for lay appeal lol. While I generally don't vote based on perceptual dominance, instead on your arguments, it does unconsciously factor into my decision (I am human, after all).
You can probably count on me having some background information on the topic, but it will definitely not be anything specific; now that I'm no longer debating, I don't have the proximity to these topics, and I'm not really staying updated about the Baltic States or the South China Sea in my free time.
I may have already added this somewhere, but I'll reiterate it here. I support sticky defense, but that is only if the evidence/argument has gone unresponded to by your opponents by the end of the round. Sticky offense is not a thing; please extend.
Watch this. It is so cute.
And at some point, please read this. It was written by a good friend of mine, and points out some very interesting points on debate itself. And on that note, please treat sensitive issues as sensitive issues.
I'm going to leave you with a life tip (which implies that I've lived long enough to experience much more than you all, which really isn't true, but whatever heh). Public Forum Debate is one of the most interesting, inclusive, and exhilarating activities I have ever done. I gained an entire second family here, one I conversed with daily and trusted with all of my heart. Public Forum will always hold a special place in my heart, and nothing could change that. That said, competition often transforms debate into a very toxic atmosphere to be in. Treat each other with respect and just be polite. While this is an important point for debate, the real world is a very toxic place as well - just try to be the nice person. Everybody is going through something: maybe their parents are having a divorce, their grandfather just died, they just broke up from a long-term relationship. Don't add to their internal problems. In rounds, debate your hearts out, but do not go for any personal attacks. Don't say anything that can be perceived offensive, including acting homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anything of the sort. At that point, I will drop you if you're actively contributing to debate's toxicity. Just be nice.
Note for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 season of debate. Please do not sit with your partner, on the same screen, together (AKA not social distancing). Not only is it not safe for you and your partner, it's just annoying because there are so many teams that get disadvantaged for taking the proper safety precautions.
With that, good luck everybody.
I am brand new to being a Public Forum debate judge. I'm excited to listen to you, learn from your speeches, and I will work hard to do the best job I can.
•Speed: I will do my best to follow your arguments and flow, but if you go too fast please know that I won't be able to keep up.
•Organization: Clarity and structure are important to me. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.
•Impact calc/weighing impacts: HIGHLY encouraged in final speeches, especially if you are into winning.
Please make sure that I can understand your arguments. I will not vote for arguments I don't understand.
Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.
Saying something louder, or with more confidence, or multiple times, does not replace having clear arguments.
I am a parent judge who is still fairly new to PF Debate.
Please avoid speaking too fast so that you can be followed.
Please back up your claims and rebuttals with evidence from reputable sources. Claims without evidence tend to be ignored.
It is a good idea to develop your arguments with depths while rebutting opponent's arguments and counter-arguments with evidence.
Most of the times one well developed argument is much better than many arguments that are not well supported/developed or dropped during debate.
Please treat opponents with respect!
Have fun in debating!
I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.
I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
For Speech Events:
Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.
Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!
I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.
Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.
Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.
I will not disclose in prelims.
Please do the timing yourselves.
I am a community judge who has judged everything but CX debate for 10 years. I have judged at least 2/3 tournaments every month for the last two years. I have watched approximately 10 rounds on the current LD topic. I prefer traditional rounds and will vote on who simplifies main ideas and use of evidence.
Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2021 - 2022 season: I've watched equal amounts PF and LD, only a few CX rounds.
I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.
Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.
- Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
- Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
- I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
- I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
- If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.
I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.
Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.
My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.
So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.
Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.
Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).
I competed in Policy from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and am now running the debate programs at a number of schools. Paradigm categorized by format below:
I'm a Stock Issues judge, and when Stock Issues are fulfilled, I default to Policymaker. I tend to have a low tolerance for frivolous Topicality arguments, but am willing to consider most based on the quality of the link and argumentation presented. My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy (what's what OO is for!) I have absolutely no tolerance for performance affs. If you run one, and your opponent so much as utters a basic T shell and consistently extends it through the round, you stand very little chance of winning.
Generally not in favor of the K. In my view many Kritiks, while useful in theory, often allow debaters to become lazy and shirk their research obligations while running the same strategy year after year. Shout out to the Cap K shells that have been in constant use since 2006. In other cases they're based on hopelessly distorted pseudo-intellectual crap that regresses the educational value of the debate. They can, however, have their legitimate uses and it would be wise for the neg, if they choose to run one with me, to provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're here to debate.
I did mention it before, but it's worth saying again; I hate performance affs with a fiery passion. They're a misguided attempt at hijacking the debate space for someone's own agenda at best, and cheap gimmick with no redeeming value at worst. If you are actually serious about some sort of injustice and want to protest it, there are many better options to do so ambushing your opponent in a debate round where you've been sent to compete about a set topic. I cannot emphasize enough how much I despise these things. Even in the unlikely event that you win, you will receive 20 speaker points, possibly lower if Tab lets me get away with it.
I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation.
I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; demonstrate how they show that you've won the round.
I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. To earn my ballot, value-criterion debate is the name of the game, along with philosophical analysis of a topic, not how a plan might be implemented. If you want to pull that, go back to Policy.
I am not a fan of Kritiks, but can understand that in some cases they can have legitimate uses. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.
LD doesn't have plans. Stop trying to run them. Same with CP's.
No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.
Performance affs will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and likely indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response to the performance aff.
Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.
I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans, or spread.
In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end.
Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Octos at Nationals in 2018 for spreading.
If you've read this far please note; I judge the debate that happens, not the one that I WANT to happen. Debate however you feel best represents your abilities.
My primary judging criteria:
1. Clear presentation and better communication of the speech/debate topic with your audience.
2. Don't overshoot your allotted time by too much.
3. Loud enough to be understood and heard by all.
4. Don't go too fast in your speech delivery.
idc ab time
roadmaps would be cool but if not whatever.
be clear and concise.
don't be aggressive unless need be.
I am a parent of one of the debaters. I'm a lay judge, please speak a little bit slowly and make the debate easy to understand. Thanks!
Hello I'm Stacey Jimenez,
I'll be your judge for this round.
I am a lay judge, so please speak clearly.
Just a few preferences I have are;
If your time is up but you're in the middle of a thought just finish it, but if I feel like you're going into a new area I will not flow it through.
When doing an off-time roadmap please state if you are doing one, when your done, and when you are about to start your time i.e. "My time will begin... now" as you press the button.
I will time the rounds, but it would be appreciated if you also self-timed yourselves!
Please turn your camera on if capable, so I am able to accurately assign speaking points.
Please be respectful of each other, your speaker points could be affected otherwise.
Lastly please avoid abuse in rounds and warn if your topics could be seen as triggers (ie. rape, suicide, etc)
Thank you, have fun, and good luck!
Hello my name is Stephen Jones.
I am an inexperienced lay judge who has never participated nor previously judged public form.
As a lay judge, I prefer a few arguments to be clear and strong instead of numerous muddled claims.
I need debaters to show me why they win the round. This means plenty of weighing in Summary and Final Focus.
Finally, please keep track of time and speak clearly and slowly in order for me to grasp your arguments and flow properly.
My name is Atul Kapoor. Am a parent judge, in my second year of judging. I prefer when arguments are explained in detail. I can only judge off what I am given in the round.
Email (Chain/Doc): firstname.lastname@example.org
Best of Luck!
I am an interp coach and have recently started judging PF and LD debate. I prefer traditional rounds and will vote based on who simplifies the main ideas.
i'm a current debater who at least kind of knows what he's doing
i'm ok with speed and i'll allow theory but if you run it then you get a heavy speaks penalty
you get 30 speaks if you say 1 topical pun in your last speech (unless you run theory)
no new evidence after first summary and everything said in final focus should be brought up in summary unless you give me a reason
i will weigh anything if it's on the flow at the end (impacts have more weight though)
if you face an abusive argument, just a quick "this is abusive" and a reason should be enough to knock it off the flow
if you weigh impacts in final focus (effectively) and the other team doesn't, you will almost always win
I'm a former PF competitor, but have been coaching all forms of debate for the last seven years. I also dabbled with parliamentary debate in college. I will vote down all Ks in PF.
In CX, I will typically vote on whatever debaters make important in the round. I'm fine with forms of typically "non-traditional" debate like K's, theory blocks, etc. I cannot flow at the fastest speeds people will spread, but typically can still follow all arguments presented.
In LD, I prefer traditional LD to progressive LD. The timings involved in the event make 1:1 CX debate really hard to watch, and require the judge to do a lot of work on behalf of the competitors. Core Value/Criterion clash is important for determining the framework of the round, but it only determines how we weigh the other arguments in the round, not who wins overall.
About me: (He/Him Pronouns) I graduated three years ago and am a current student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I now do coaching for EPS.
If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: email@example.com Or, text me at 253-683-1929
About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS
speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.
I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.
If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.
Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.
SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.
I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.
Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.
For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow
For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.
Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned
if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary
Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.
FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why
weighing is also good
Things that are bad and you should not do:
CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)
Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.
overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.
if you have any further questions please ask.
I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am open to any arguments and rebuttals but will be specifically looking for arguments that are supported by evidence and will rely on you to demonstrate the impact and calculate the numbers (where appropriate). I am looking for you to flow your arguments and rebut your opponents arguments. Please do not leave your opponent's contentions hanging without a rebuttal.
While I will weigh the round, I am looking for you to provide you point-of-view and will certainly take that into consideration.
Lastly, please be respectful (I will deduct points if you are not), have fun and speak slow enough so that I can understand you. Compelling arguments with evidence and impact are more important than speed and volume.
I am a parent judge. I did CEDA debate in college (30 years) ago but haven't judged anything in the last 25 years. I will flow and judge on the flow and on the impacts you land.
I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.
I am currently in my last year of college attending Santa Clara University. I am an economics and have a double minor is spanish and political science. I debated Public Forum for 2 years and briefly debated policy for one year while in high school. I also competed in oratory for a year and have had some experience with expository. That being said, while speech skills are still important within a public forum round, I will look towards arguments and debate skill when weighing a round. As far as speed goes I am okay with any speed and will be able to understand you as long as you are clear, however, make sure if you are going to talk fast that you are clear while doing so.
For what I like to see in a round, I would like a good clear round with well presented arguments and clash from both teams. I believe clear organization is important to a good round and will make it much simpler for debaters as well as me as a judge to follow what is going on. The Final Focus and Summary are the two most important pieces of a round to me and I would like to see main arguments presented and impacts weighed against each others. During FF I would like to see voters presented clearly as well. I like to see what arguments are left at the end of the round from each team.
I am okay with any type of argument as long as you have the evidence to support it and can clearly communicate the information you would like to present. Assume that I as a judge know nothing about the topic beforehand.
Seasoned ex-public forum debater. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach.
1. I base my decision on the flow and impacts made. Meaning, if any arguments and cards are not extended properly, I will not do your work for you and extend them. I will drop them like its hot and in turn, vote against you. I cannot stress this enough, but please make an effort in making impacts in the debate. I appreciate impact calculus and impact magnitude. Weigh arguments against each other and make my job as a judge easy and do the work for me.
2. I'm good with speed but I don't do drugs. I uphold clarity over substance. If I don't understand you, then I won't flow your arguments. On the side note, I don't flow crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in a speech.
3. As far as framework goes, hit me with your best shot. As long as there is weighing in the round as to what and how I should be judging, I won't complain and I won't deter from the weighing mechanism. However, if there is no framework or weighing mechanism in the round, I will default to a cost benefit analysis and the impact flow. With the nature of this resolution this weighing mechanism is the most fair and easiest to utilize.
4. I appreciate evidence analysis in a debate but I absolutely do not appreciate the debate boiling down to just pieces of evidence. Give me your impacts. Evidence is only there to better what you are arguing--not be your argument. With that being said, I will also take a look at a piece of evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. If your evidence doesn't say what you said in the round--I will drop you like it's hot (x2). I don't run prep for evidence calls as long as no prep going on.
5. I want cohesion in speeches. Meaning, the summary and final focus should be cohesive as far as what the key impacts were in the round. I will not weigh an argument unless it is pulled through every speech. The beauty of public forum isn't just the resolutions or nature of debate but rather the partnership that comes with it. It's a partner event--work together.
6. Be civil. I appreciate assertiveness but there is a fine line between being assertive and being rude. I will drop you for being rude and uncivilized. Low speaks don't matter as long as you break but when it affects you breaking, then there is a sense of urgency. As Kendrick Lamar said, "[b]e humble."
NOTE: This is geared towards policy debate at the moment, but much of the logic here applies to PF.
Additional PF-specific notes at the top:
I find the practice of card paraphrasing to be problematic. It's educationally unsound and ethically problematic because the structure of the event really makes it difficult to check abuse. I would much rather see a long card with aggressive highlighting than a paraphrase.
If you are reading one-sentence cards or paraphrased cards, you should know that I will be very receptive to a theory block about it. If you present a card inside quotation marks that is not an actual quote, I will vote on that evidence abuse almost every time.
If we're going to run 20+ cards in public forum rounds, my expectation is that both teams share speech docs with full cut cards at the start or end of their speeches. Don't send cards one at a time, don't send one-sentence quotes, send full, cut cards.
That being said, my preference is for evidence-heavy debate (at least in constructives) where the cards provide the warrants and backing evidence.
My biggest pet peeve is teams reading blocks in rounds that they don't really understand and are maybe reading for the first time. There are moments when you are going to be surprised by a position or case in a round, but most of the time, you should be familiar with the blocks you read. This activity has to be more than teams reading blocks written by their coaches and other debaters. I want smart, round-specific analytical arguments and will give far more credit to a round-specific claim than something you read from a block.
I have been involved with policy for a long time, but have been out of the judging circuit after a long pause from the activity as a coach. In general, that means I am open-minded about any kind of argumentation but tend to prefer a policy-oriented round. I will listen to and vote for kritiks and critical Affs but I will be very sympathetic to arguments against K Affs. Very sympathetic!
Happy to vote on big impact positions, but perhaps more inclined to listen to smart analytical analysis of flaws in the evidence and link stories than most judges.
Perhaps a bit more clarification here is warranted: I really dislike the trend of contemporary debate to have rounds boil down to arguments about fairness/reasonability/etc. These arguments are often reductive and repetitive. They also encourage judge intervention if they become major voting issues, Make them in the constructives, but by rebuttals, let's move to more substantive analysis.
A few things I don't like
Really rapid analytical arguments without context or development (fewer, better analyticals are better for me), arguments that are exclusionary or demeaning, misrepresentation of evidence, stripping cards of their warrants in your highlighting.
Things I do like
Thoughtful comparison of impact calculus in rebuttals, respectful debate that is inclusive, thoughtful analysis of framework debates, signposting arguments.
Things worth knowing:
I want the 2AC/2NC/1NR/1AR segment of the debate to compare evidence and analysis. It's great that you've got some prepared frontlines in your folders, but I am far more interested in strong in-round analysis than in competing prepped positions.
If the Neg runs a series of contradictory 1N shells, I am very inclined to consider Aff arguments that claim it's an abusive strategy. I prefer the Neg to take an intellectually consistent approach to the round. Don't run a K that says state action is genocide and a states counterplan and expect that you'll easily get out of it by kicking one in the block.
I flow what I can hear. Sure, I will look at the e-mail chain, but even if we're on Zoom, I want to be able to hear and understand your cards. I am not particularly interested in policy debate becoming an activity where five people read Word documents sent to one another. I will use your doc to supplement my flow, but I expect you to be clear enough that I can understand both tag and cards.
I have several years of experience in Varsity Public Forum debate. I work off of the flow and value well-substantiated link chains with strong and unique impacts. I generally prefer teams that don't spread, but, if you need to go a little faster, I can keep up. Please don't run contentions strictly regarding K or policy; I'd rather just have a straight-forward conversation about the topic. Please don't be a jerk during cross and please don't go excessively over time during speeches. Signposting during speeches is appreciated, and off-time roadmaps are only necessary if you actually deviate from the expected structure of a summary or final focus speech (their arguments, my arguments, weighing).
Hi, my name is Christine Pyle
I am a coach and participated in debate in school many years ago.
Fast talking(spreading) is fine, however clarity is key.
Signposting is preferred - organization helps not only me but you
If you are utilizing impacts to enhance your case, follow through with those impacts in your case to the end of the debate.
I'm looking for good case structure, compelling arguments, good use of crossfire, and that arguments with weight are flowing through to the end.
I have done some coaching on the topic so I am not completely new to the topic, but I have not judged a round in a decent amount of time. As such I recommend that you don't go too fast. I, as all debaters do, enjoy the tech side of debate, but I also think that PF specifically should not become to techy that it is inaccessible to the average high schooler. By this I do not mean that I think progressive debate is particularly bad or shouldn't be run (although if you are running prog arguments read the section of my paradigm on them), but I do think that PF rounds should not go outrageously fast. To combat this trend to people going faster and faster in PF if you are going too fast for me to flow or get all of your points down I will not call for your doc or anything I simply just won't flow what I can't get down. To be clear, I am not a dinosaur as it relates to flowing and I can flow moderately fast, but I have no interest in flowing some 300+ wpm policy round. If you want to be safe as it relates to speed go maybe a bit faster than you would for a flay judge.
TW - IMPORTANT (Specifically for PF)
If you are reading something that is potentially triggering please read a TW, and give your opponents the opportunity to opt out. If you read an argument that could obviously trigger someone like sexual assault without a TW I will be mad and not like you. I understand that some people may feel this is a stupid rule because they think that it is unreasonable to force debaters to have multiple cases, but I would say it is a lot worse to force someone to relive trauma.
I think Parli rounds are typically either really good, or quite disappointing, mainly because I think there is a big divide between teams that know how to prep, and teams that don't. Parli is not a debate about who has the best cards the way that Policy, PF, and LD are, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I as a judge don't value cards, I think that I have an obligation to. In my opinion the best cards to try and find in Parli by far are impact cards. You can use logic to make link chains, and you don't need evidence to define basic political facts, but you can't just assert that the electrical grid being damaged kills X many people. Having quantifiable impacts is such a huge help especially in the weighing side of the debate.
In terms of progressive debate, I am not opposed to it, but know that I am not the best judge for it.
I think weighing is incredibly important when you don't have cards, as such I think weighing should be like your main focus in Parli. You should probably start weighing as early as you can. I am also a huge sucker for meta weighing because I think that it is super under utilized, so if you do that I will be quite happy.
Although I don't think most Parli rounds should be judged on a strictly line by line level, that doesn't mean that you should abandon the flow. In fact chances are if you go line by line you are a lot more likely to get my ballot than if you don't.
A lot of my PF paradigm applies as well, so probably read that if you have time. Otherwise if you have any other questions just ask me.
I did PF. I can flow moderately fast but don't go too fast. If you spread I will insta drop you (please be aware I define spreading very liberally so to be safe just go slower). I am definitely not opposed to hearing K's or theory debates, but please be aware that I do not have a lot of experience in that realm of debate and as such I am definitely not the best judge for it. With that said, please be aware that I come from a school that did not have any support for debate and as such, although I do recognize the positive change that can run from running progressive arguments (especially against other good teams who know how to handle those arguments), I also recognize the inherent inaccessibility that prog arguments possess. I mention this so you know that I support you running prog arguments, but also am subconsciously more likely to support and vote for the team not running those args.
You need to weigh, if only one team weighs I will default to them.
Extend warrants and not just authors.
2nd rebuttal should probably frontline, but prioritize turns. Defense is sticky in 1st summary.
For the most part I am only going to call for cards if either one of the debaters tells me to, or if the card seems kind of outrageous. If I call for a card just because it seems outrageous I will only check to see if it is blatantly fake, all other evidence analysis should be done by the debaters. Any other questions just ask me.
One last thing. PLEASE EXTEND. I have had to drop multiple teams now that were dominating the round simply because they only extended their impact. You need to extend the warranting. To be safe signpost your extending. Don't just frontline and extend somewhere in your frontlining. At some point in Summary or FF say to me now extend my whatever contention.
DROPPED DEFENSE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED IN SUMMARY
But it does need to be in FF
Dropped offense must be extended.
SIGNPOST I want to know where I'm flowing your arguments. Jumpy responses confuse me. If I’m confused by your speech you are less likely to win.
WARRANT I need you to explain why your turn is a turn to extend it. Tell me, “extend the turn on their C2, where we tell you _______ according to _______.” I won't vote on a turn without warranting.
COLLAPSE Don't make the round about 10 different arguments. Narrow it down to something you can flesh out at the end of the debate. This has become a huge issue. If the other team doesn’t collapse and you do, I’ll be more likely to vote for you because I’ll have a better comprehension of your case.
WEIGH Tell me why I prefer your argument PLEASE! SEVERITY, REVERSIBILITY, MAGNITUDE, TIMEFRAME; USE IT. If you weigh and your opps don’t; guess what? You win. Weigh.
Things that will ding your speaks/get you dropped:
1. Bad evidence ethics. If you very blatantly misrep evidence then at best I will drop your points by 1. If your opponents call for your card and then tell me to read it and drop you for bad evidence, there's a chance I'll drop you for it. Bad evidence undermines education.
2. Sexism, racism, and general excessive rudeness with get you L20ed instantly.
When giving my rfd, I am not opposed to clarifications of the debate from both teams (like postround me, hard (this doesn’t mean you get to argue with me. I’m for postrounding to clarify my decision, not to continue the debate.)). Hopefully this clarifies the debate and prevents any team from feeling like they got screwed. A judge should be able to explain their decision. I'll ask questions if I think I'm missing something.
For the most part I will support anything you run, but just ask me about it before the round.
If are going to do an email chain please put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org (To be clear, although I want to be on the email chain for convenience sake just in case I need to look at a card, I do not plan on/want to have to be looking through your cards)
P.S. If something happens during the round that you don't feel comfortable talking about publicly (i.e. misgendering) send me a dm in zoom, an email, or any other way of conversation.
Hello, my name is Joey Ribera (he/him) and I'm a former PF/LD debater (3 years pf/1 year LD).
- Speed is fine
- Whatever contentions/argumentation you view relevant to bring up in the round, I will flow + consider in my decision. The only thing I encourage is making the impacts and the weighing factors you'd want me to evaluate them from really clear within the round.
- Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before round!
Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute
General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.
Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy
Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".
I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.
For me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.
While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say, because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.
If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.
Please sign post. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?
Off time road maps are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you sign post, I'll know which order you're going in.
Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying.
This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.
I'm a parent judge. My wife is an assistant debate coach. All of my kids are in debate.
No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Road maps. Let me know where you're going. Then make sure you go there.
Sign post. That will help me to make sure I capture your contentions so.
Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.
For LD, I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value. Make sure all of your contentions support that value.
I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.
First thing, and I think the most important thing people look for in paradigms: I am a flow judge so do with that information as you will
- Speech and debate is meant to show off your abilities as well as having fun. That being said, be kind and respectful to one another. Ethics violations will be taken seriously and nobody wants to deal with those
- If you have any questions regarding my paradigms please don't hesitate to reach out - especially if I leave something out here
- Because there are so many different events, my paradigms will all be found in the comments and RFD for the round
Debate (PF and LD):
- Speed: Don't spread, if you do you're not only making things more difficult for your opponent(s) but for your judge as well and I don't like that
- Timing: Please keep track of your own time; however, I will also be keeping time and mine is the official time. Additionally, don't have your timer go off on your opponent(s), I find this rude and unnecessary
- Off time roadmaps: These are fine, but keep them short and simple. If you go on forever I will be starting your time
- Signposting, weighing, and voters: These are your friends! Please use them in your speeches!
- Counter plans and kritiks: Don't even think about using these in PF or LD. These are not the events to do so, and if you really want to then go debate in policy
- PF specific notes: Do not use CX as a rebuttal speech, if you do I reserve the right to stop it. The same goes for GCX. If it turns into a hot mess, I will also be stopping it. I want to watch a debate and not an attempt at a UFC fight
- LD specific notes: LD revolves around the framework. For this reason, there is less evidence weighing and more emphasis on the VVC. If you do not attack the VVC or link it in your impacts the odds are you will not win
- Congress speeches are centered around execution and persuasion. I want to see ethos, pathos, and logos, as well as good public speaking skills. Do not read straight from your paper or computer screen the whole time - especially during impacts!
- The best Congress rounds are those similar to the ones at nationals in terms of how speeches progress through the debate. There should be speakers at the beginning who introduce the legislation, additional arguments and the furthering of arguments on both sides, and then crystallization speeches at the very end. Rounds in which speakers continue to give the same arguments with no clash gets really boring really quickly
- Questions should be thoughtful and answers should be more than one word. At the same time, don't ramble forever just so there is less time for other questioners. The more people who can ask questions is better for everyone
- I understand that Congress can get boring sometimes, especially when rounds go on for hours, but try to maintain your composure as much as possible. Try to limit silly and unnecessary motions and stay on track
- Rankings will be decided on several different factors. I expect the speaker to be engaged as well as showing good decorum. Examples of this include: giving speeches and asking questions, making motions, understanding the rules, and not sitting on your phone/being distracted the whole time
Savoy High School, Savoy, Texas / Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
I competed in CX Debate, LD Debate, and Informative/Extemporaneous speaking during my four years of high school. I then went on to join the Debate Team during my two years at Florida State University as well. In the years following college graduation, I have both judged and coached students/tournaments on all levels from Elementary School through Collegiate levels.
Experience Judging: CX Debate, Policy Debate, LD Debate, Parli Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congress Debate, Informative/Extemporaneous Speaking, Editorial Commentary, Spontaneous Argumentation Debate (SPAR), Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, and Oratory.
High School - 9th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 10th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Impromptu Speaking High School - 12th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 12th Grade - 2nd Place (Silver Gavel) Speaker Award - 2nd Best Speaker in State of Texas - 1A Cross-X Debate
Briefly, I am a traditional CX judge, and, as you can see above, the majority of my experience both on a competitive level as well as that of a judge has been on the CX circuits. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules that affirms or negates the resolution. I am always open to hearing plans/counter-plans and find a debate round to be very intriguing if/when I see two teams who know how to present, execute, and defend a quality plan/counter-plan, etc. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. However, at the same time, basics are still very important to me. (i.e., Pay attention to AND provide/present strong, credible, current evidence in support of any contentions/arguments presented. Be quick to point out/counter old, outdated, irrelevant/unreliable evidence given by an opponent. I believe very strongly in backing any/all contentions/arguments with strong evidence from reliable/trustworthy sources.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:
I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. However, again, please refer to my notes above under Cross-Examination Debate regarding my thoughts on evidence, etc. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence. FLOW, FLOW, FLOW a debate in it's ENTIRETY from start to finish. It is almost ALWAYS easily apparent if/when a debater fails to do this as arguments/contentions almost always end up being forgotten/skipped/unresponded to as a result. This could prove catastrophic to a debate. I tend to carry any arguments/contentions presented in the constructives all the way through to the end and, in most cases, will consider them to be fact if/when an argument/contention is skipped over and/or not responded to by each team member.
IN MORE DEPTH:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.
Speed/flow: I can handle speed, having competed myself on a collegiate level, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, I'd go with more focus on creating strong, compelling arguments vs reading your speech faster, etc.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker. Though debates can be/often times are quite contentious, even heated at times, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that ALL DEBATERS treat one another, their teammates, their opponents, coaches, judges, and staff with the utmost respect AT ALL TIMES. I do not like ugly (mean). I can appreciate an aggressive/contentious debate/cross-examination, etc, however, it is imperative that each and every competitor carry themselves with class, dignity, and respect at all times. Remember, we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER at the end of the day!
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give perfect speaker points. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged state champions, and have, personally, been the recipient of a Silver Gavel Speaker Award my Senior Year in High School. However, even then, I did not receive perfect speaker points from my judges. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair. If you are hoping for a lenient judge who gives out speaker points like they're nothing...that's not me. While I will ALWAYS BE FAIR in giving out speaker points, I expect any debater that I give perfect/near perfect points to to REALLY set themselves apart from the rest in some form or fashion and EARN those high points. Again, however, I am not one to be TOO STRINGENT/STINGY with my speaker points and will, always, be fair to all.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.
Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.
Junior at the University of Texas at Austin.
divwalia [at] utexas [dot] edu
1. Consistency across the flow is important to me. I will be flowing, and any inconsistencies you have in your argumentation will be evident and affect my decision.
2. PLEASE signpost. It is in your best interest. Spell out your desired outcome for me, even though I am not a lay judge. This should never change.
3. If you are an LD or PF debater with a more traditional style and you are given a case to read, make sure you have a full understanding of what you are given (and it sounds so).
Value and Value Criterion
I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure (a) it contributes to your argument meaningfully and (b) you actually have an understanding of what you are saying. If you are reading a philosophical passage simply for the sake of reading it, please, save us all the trouble.
Progressive LD, Theory, and Ks
I will only entertain progressive arguments if they are explained well enough. Arguments do not necessarily need to be understandable to a "lay" judge, but a judge should not have to be specifically keyed into obscure terminology in order to follow your argument. In other words, if you run theory or Ks in order to score an "easy win" against an opponent who debates in a traditional fashion, you will lose the round.
Ks are often valid, but are not always productive. I will not entertain debaters who seek to make debate inaccessible in this manner for their opponents, and for that matter, for judges, simply for the sake of winning. Use them for their intended purpose, and nothing more.
Running theory is akin to asking me, the judge, to intervene in the round. I will only do so if the request is reasonable.
Slow and "fast" conversational talking speeds are all fine. I really have no problem with moderate speed so long as taglines and impacts are read slowly and with purpose. However, in my experience, speaking extremely fast rarely results in any sort of advantage.
25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.
26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.
27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.
28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.
29 - well above average.
30 - perfect.
Unless this conflicts with a rule of a specific tournament or circuit, I will not allow flex prep. Asking for evidence during prep time is okay, but don't expect me to pay attention. I judge based on what I hear during speeches and CX.
I will not rigorously flow during CX but during rounds between similarly competent debaters, this will likely be a deciding factor.
I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.
Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.
Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.
I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.
I stop listening when you go over time.
I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.
Hi I've participated in debate but treat me like lay to be honest.
- Please do not spread, when debating do it in an articulate fashion.
- Don't misconstrue cards.
- Have fun!
Talk slowly or at a moderate pace for both cases and speeches.
Clarity is key - make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly. Don't use debate jargon as I probably won't be able to follow you.
Be respectful - don't be rude or passive-aggressive during cross.
Implicate and extend claims, warrants, and impacts. Don't assume the judge knows what you are talking about in every new speech, reiterate the most important concepts in the round that you want the judge to vote off of.
Reexplain all defense read in all speeches as it isn't extended if you don't explain the warranting from speech to speech.
WEIGH - Tell me why your arguments/links to those arguments matter more. If no weighing is done the round could go either way.