DSDL 6 Online
2022 — NSDA Campus, NC/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMy pronouns are he/him.
Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.
Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)
If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always
I clap at the end of rounds
Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.
Spring 2023 Update:
- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.
- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.
- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.
Some general thoughts:
- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.
- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.
- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost
- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?
- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations
- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!
- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk
LD SPECIFIC:
- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.
GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS
My background is College Mock Trial which requires you to know both your case and your opponent's case inside and out. I expect the same in a round of debate.
Things that if you do and the majority of competitors doesn't will LOSE you (yeah you) points:
- Reading at 1 million words per minute. Are all 100 facts in your constructive really necessary? My guess is no. Cutting those so you can slow down helps improve clarity and gives me a better idea of what you want to get across. As my Mock Trial Coach once told me "who cares what you are saying if no one can understand you"
- Reading off a script. My sister who does high school speech and debate has told me that this is unreasonable for you to memorize a speech for a pf debate but I don't care, if I have to memorize 70+ pages of a made up mock trial case you can memorize a four minute speech.
- Lacking Gravitas. What I mean by this is that within your two prewritten speeches you don't perform these three simple things to make your side stronger
1. Modifying volume: Wanna make a point? Increase your volume, it signifies to me that this is something you want me to care about.
2. Modifying pace/timing: After you just raised your voice and made this epic point what do you do? If you said "speed into another tirade of facts" you are wrong, I want you to let it rest for a second (I promise you have more than enough time), let me have time to think "Wow that was an awesome point!" If you do this your points will improve.
3. Modifying tone: Yes, you have ran through this speech a billionty times. Yes, you want to vomit when you think of the term "rural hospitals." However, this is one of the first times I have heard your case (I only part time judge) so to me this is a wonderful new topic I get to learn about. Share in that experience with me, give me EMOTION, be invested in proving to me why your side is the one I should fill out my ballot for.
Note: All three of the above become SO much easier if you memorize the material.
Here are some things that will GAIN you points regardless if your opponent does this because most competitors will NOT do this:
- Do not say the following things or anything like them: “Like,” “I Guess,” “I Think,” or “Maybe” this signifies that you are confused and being unprofessional
- Offering Analysis: Prove you know your stuff! I do not care how many facts you quote and how many statistics you read if you do not tell me the IMPLICATIONS of them. Yes the deficit will go up if x occurs but SO WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS? That is what you must demonstrate if you want to do well
- For crossfires, have the wording of your questions written prior to beginning the crossfire. I have judged 6 rounds so far and in all 6 at least one participant fumbled the bag on crossfire and took upwards of 15 seconds stuttering their way through a question. You have 3/4 minutes of an opponents speech to write out your question, there is no excuse for wasting valuable time just because you could not form the sentence properly.
- Understanding your opponent's argument: This comes in two forms:
1. NEVER ASK THEM WHAT THEIR CONTENTION WAS IN CROSSFIRE, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO DESTROY THEM DO NOT GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILIBUSTER AND BLATHER ON ABOUT HOW SMART THEY ARE. Instead I'd recommend paying actual attention :)
2. Countering your opponent's points logically. One round I saw had a person go "You say jobs would go down 20%, we say they would go up 40%, therefore the amount of jobs would go up 20%." Now, does that make sense? If you said yes you are wrong. I want for a team instead to say "Their job predictions are apocalyptic and would be countered by our forty percent as our opponent only is taking into account for jobs in a singular sector whereas we are taking into account all sectors. By removing private insurance yes you lose jobs but this creates far more job openings in the medical and other sectors thereby actually increasing jobs." That actually makes sense now doesn't it? This demonstration of knowledge is sorely needed in an event that too often turns into a fact reciting competition.
- Gimme context for your sources. When you say "per Kerry, 13" I have no clue whether that is actually a scholarly source. For all I know Kerry could be something your uncle's boyfriend said at the cookout last September. Instead say "per Dr. Jim Kerry, a sleep researcher from the University of Washington, in 2013" or "per a sleep research study by Dr. Jim Kerry and the University of Washington conducted in 2013"
And that's it, I know this is like super intimidating and you probly (don't laugh at me I don't know how to spell probably) are not looking forward to this round but don't worry I won't bite your head off. If you made it this far just know I admire your ability to read through all my blithering lol anyways here is your reward in the form of a cool video of a panda eating celery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ . Good Luck!
Note: If my first competition is any indication of my judging toughness it appears I am quite a tough judge so don’t be discouraged if you receive a lower score than you expected.
I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.
I am a parent lay judge! We would all benefit if you present your arguments at a pace and in an outline format that ensures I can flow them correctly. I have no issues with an off-time roadmap if you desire.
I value logic with supporting evidence over emotional arguments. I would prefer to hear coherently linked arguments rather than an assortment of arguments unrelated to each other.
-Congress
I would say that I care about content more than delivery, but giving a good speech with relatively few fluency breaks and well written content is still important. If you are not giving an early in the round constructive then you need to engage with the speakers that came before you. Rehash is only acceptable if you add new impacts or something else fresh and spicy. It also goes a long way to show that you can give different types of speeches. Clash is important. Ask questions throughout the round if you are going to speak later on a bill and then reference your questions in your speech. This proves that your questions had a purpose.
I take notes quickly so the speed of your words will not affect your score unless it is hampering your ability to deliver the speech and engage with competitors.
-PF/ LD
I flow the round and I type quickly so don't worry about talking too fast. HOWEVER if you are talking super fast, I really appreciate when people send out those little clarification sheets so that I can double check that I did not miss a point. If you drop an argument on the flow then I will count it for the other side so try to respond to everything meaningfully. Effective weighing is very informative when I make my decision also. If you are going to say that your opponent's evidence is bad make sure you explain why it is bad and yours is better instead of just saying yours is more holistic. I need to know why your card is more holistic.
Hello! I'm a junior at Duke who did PF and Congressional Debate in high school.
Presentation-wise, I prefer clear, enunciated talking with solid eye contact throughout.
With regards to argumentation, I'm looking for the standard claim --> warrant --> impact logic.
If your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that contradicts your argument, don't come up in rebuttal and say "their argument does not stand because my evidence states the opposite" and end it there. Juxtaposing two contradictory pieces of evidence doesn't prove anything from my perspective. Tell me why your evidence is better/more reliable/more relevant than theirs. That way you're proving the legitimacy of your argument and actually invalidating your opponent's.
Also, have fun! :D
Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.
- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.
- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.
- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.
Hey, I'm a lay judge! This is my second year judging.
Some things I'd like to make the round easier for me and for you:
I'd prefer it if you weren't spreading as much so that I can thoroughly understand your argument.
Also, since I don't know much about the topic, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your argument well to me.
Good Luck,
Narendra
UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update
I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
Congress
Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.
POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.
Public Forum
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
Policy Debate
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
LD Debate
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.
Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC
Background:
I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.
With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.
I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.
I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.
If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.
I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.
I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.
I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.
I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.
Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.
As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.
Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.