Arkansas District Tournament In Honor of Jennifer Akers
2022 — AR/US
Debate (Debate: Public Forum and LD) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
My pronouns are she/her/hers. My debate experience started in High school with Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Parliamentary debate, and most extensively World Schools Debate. I am currently a student at George Washington University continuing in Parli.
The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round.
My judging is focused on two areas: Content and Style. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.
What do you need to do to win?
1. First, follow the rules of the debate and respect your opponents; obviously. Don’t bombard a speaker with POIs to the point they cannot provide adequate argumentation (this can get annoying and is far too aggressive- plus it kills the vibe honestly). Don’t ask another question/provide a statement right after your POI has been answered or acknowledged by the opponent UNLESS you have been accepted for a follow up. If your POI hasn’t been answered or even acknowledged for more than 20 seconds, please sit down (I will for sure notice this and consider it during the ballot and for my decision). You’re only wasting time you could use for flowing at that point. Lastly, just respect your opponents protected time.
2. Next, structure. If you haven’t practiced your speech as first speaker, or done mock rounds, it’s clear as day in your timing. I want definitions, burdens, first and second substantive, and a foundation for framing in first speeches (1st opp: you can decide if you want to do rebuttals first or case, that’s a strategic decision that can either give you a strong head start or kill you depending on how well your first speaker is. So be smart about it, especially if your case is lengthy). Second speeches MUST start with rebuttal first, flowing your previous two substantives to ensure they are not dropped, (even if they aren’t the BEST, it’s better to have some material than to be left with nothing by the end of the round because you dropped all your subs..) and then finally introducing your third substantive. Third speech should not include any new arguments; they will not be flowed by me. You should be painting a picture to me of your world, comparing how both sides would look, and of course THREE BIG QUESTIONS. Please! These are big in my decision making. And finally, fourth speech should flow those three subs once again, connecting them to the framing of the debate, proving you have met the burden (or how opponents have failed to meet) and finalize with your voters (as many as you feel there are).
- Fallacies are stupid and dumb please don’t try these during a debate. Same with over-exaggerations, hyperboles, etc etc. If you know an opponents information is false too, please, speak up because catching someone in a lie or proving they don’t really know what they are talking about is truly satisfying.
- Like I said with structure, three big questions and voters are important. If your subs have been dropped, don’t stop including them in your speeches in ways that tie to your opponents big questions; then you kill two birds with one stone.
- Impacts. Not only will these help outweigh your opponents big questions, basically rendering them useless, they add personality and urgency to your case/side. A team that doesn’t recognize the importance of impact is a sad one.
Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.
Congressional Debate I love-
-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly
-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)
-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure
-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along
-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.
I really dislike-
-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.
-Spreading this is congress
-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me
-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying
Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-
Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger
Arguments that are constructive and flow really well
Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior
I really dislike-
When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.
THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:
If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.
If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com
I'm not shy about heated debate or passionate discourse, but when people get crazy or rude, that's a buzz kill. There's got to be a better code of conduct, some basic etiquette.
I would like to preempt my paradigm with a few definite-don’t that I know are scattered through almost every paradigm out there. First, If you are looking for a judge who is going to be ok with you walking over your opponent- making the debate unfair- then i am not the judge for you. I have been debating for 3 years now and I know what a good debate looks like. In PF debate, One team should not take up the majority of the time during Cross. I have seen many debaters try to overpower their opponents to the point that they have no chance to make their points. I find that to be rude and a bad quality in a debater. If you try to do this in a debate your speaks will reflect it. Next, I 100% believe that is a game. I understand that we out here to win but if you're prepared to step over others to do so, then I don’t think your doing it in the right spirit. I will not tolerate being rude/hateful to your opponents, your partner, or anyone else in the round. Just be nice guys. It’s not really that hard.
I am a go with the flow type of judge. Unless, you give me a different way to weigh the round. I will not make any assumptions for you. Going off that I think it's very important to protect the individual aspects of your arguments. YOU HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR LINKS. If your opponent's attack a link and you just try to ignore their answers and push your impacts without a link, I will notice. That may work on more lay judges but I am pretty good at keeping up.
Evidence- I’m not very fond of the “my evidence is better than theirs” arguments. If you think that they are using abusive evidence then that is something different but if your going to argue dates or publications than that just shows me that you aren’t prepared with backup evidence.
Speed: I can keep up with speed if your speaking clearly. I, myself am known to talk a little fast in round so I know the struggle of a judge trying to slow you down. Some of these speeches your expected to fit a lot of information in a short amount of time, so I understand that taking a little faster can be a good way to get more information out. I’m fine with this as long as you are still enunciation and speaking clearly. If you can’t cleary speak at that speed I recommend reorganizing your case instead of just muddling through it. If you are speaking unclearly I will not follow with the flow, so if you want me to keep up with your key points and important pieces of evidence than you need to put emphasis on them.
Keep the debate interesting with new evidence and argumentation
Be polite! Of course keep a bite but never step into the realm of rude.
Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych degree. I'm currently a 1L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Add me to the chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!
TLDR paradigm: Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; I don't gut check "bad" arguments; I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; I feel like this goes without saying but I will not vote on something I don't understand it just doesn't make any sense for me to do so; By nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent. This means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by); I enjoy analytics more than empirics. I love tricks, but I think they're only pedagogically valuable for their ability to boost critical thinking other than that they're generally just for funzies and potentially bad for debate; Due to the nature of my paradigm and the debates I typically judge because of it please read the fourth point in the general section as well; Lastly my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change just make the proper arg.
- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing
- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy
- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification
- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.
- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)
- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you
- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation
- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)
- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly
- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear
- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings
- flex prep is cool
- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)
- there are only a few norms I think are pretty true; among them are judge intervention bad, no new 2ar arguments, and normal speech times (although these can easily change)
- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)
Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):
Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)
Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):
Phil/High Theory- 1
note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference
- Love these please know what your own plan says though
- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine.
- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it will be veryyy hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of
- the solvency section is very important for me if you don't have one it's gonna be rough
- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate
- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple CP debates)
- Any CP is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on
- I default condo is bad in all scenarios, but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks) you just have to be marginally ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo CPs just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)
- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you
- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive CP makes this position much better
- the more unique the DA the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)
- Please do notttt confuse this with basic FW debate
- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is any lower/higher than any other argument
- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack
- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing
- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)
- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory
- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of LD debate
- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which fw to evaluate under, but I'm not super compelled to default either way
- K Affs are hella fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of T-FW as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs T-FW as long as there is sufficient offense
- KvK is cool
- poems/music/art/performance is offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)
- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)
- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad
- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning
- please don't read links that you yourself link into
- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topical links
- I love seeing the extrapolation of these as linear DAs in the 2nr
- I am comfortable voting off state links they're just boring
- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves
- MUST be explained; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism)
- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad and if your opponent points it out it's an uphill battle to win the k flow
- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool
- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way
- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense
- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing
- friv is fantastic
- please make them positively worded
- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets
- have them and extend them in the next speech
- screenshots/photos are the best
- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever
- the more the merrier
- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier
- I default RVI's good, competing interps, and DTD unless otherwise specified
- I default fairness first but am easily able to be persuaded otherwise
- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, etc. matter)
- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)
- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well
- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you
- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary
- I'm unsure if AFC/ACC are tricks, but know I'll listen to both
- aprioris and evaluate after the 1ar are the a-strat
- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. as long as it is well warranted
- My speaks practices have recently changed :( I'll give speaks based on strategic decision making and clarity (I'm no longer just giving straight double 30s without a spike or some other argument that prompts me to)
- I am persuaded by a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it is extended
- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate like I would a nat circuit for a local
- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a large speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine
- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is
- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format
Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:
To start, my credentials are as follows:
-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate
-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament
-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.
-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress
With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.
Now, what does it take to win my ballot?
I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.
-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)
-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.
-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.
-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*
-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.
-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.
-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.
-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality
-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.
Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.
Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.
I am a debater at the University of Arkansas. I did HS Forensics and Debate at Fayetteville High School and graduated in 2021. I mostly did Big Questions, Congress, and Public Forum.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out! email@example.com (add me to any email chains please)
Run whatever you want, as long as it's explained well and links.
Saying or running anything that's racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. will result in being voted down immediately.
Please don't be rude. It's okay to be aggressive, but there is a line.
Speaking quickly is fine, but please don’t spread.
Speed is good just be clear and emphasize key arguments
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments
Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well
Slightly truth over tech
I have did debate for four years at Cabot, and have experience in every type of event besides congress. My preferable event, however, is LD There are sections in this paradigm that go over my opinions about PF along with sections about certain types of LD debate strategies that are used often. Also, there's a really brief congress paradigm at the bottom.
It doesn’t really matter to me what you run. Follow basic public forum rules. If you spread or talk exceedingly fast I’ll most likely vote you down since that’s considered abusive unless the opponent just goes with it. At that point it’s fair game. In the rebuttals, make sure to be organized , and I prefer line-by-line with numbered responses if you have more than 1 response. Final focus should be strictly weighing and voters. No new args should be brought up in the summary and should be used for extending your own case.
I don't really care what style you debate in as I have done both traditional and progressive LD. A major thing for me is that if you are to run a progressive case, you need to clarify your major impacts and make sure I catch on within the jumble of arguments you're spreading. Other than that, follow basic guidelines for spreading such as slowing down on taglines and etc. The following things are my viewpoints on the progressive arguments that could be used and just my basic viewpoints on clash and case arguments.
If you can convince me that the opponent isn’t topical then that gives you some leverage. However, I don’t think that running just topicality and not touching any of the opponent's case is acceptable. If their arguments aren’t topical, explain why. Don’t just claim that they aren’t topical and not give any reasoning for why that is because at that point I’m not considering that as a legitimate argument. Topicality provides a way for good clash in a debate, but it shouldn’t be the only thing argued throughout. There should be other arguments ran so it’s not the only clash within the debate.
I really enjoy this strategy, and I think it provides a fun, creative spin to a debate. Disads should be relevant and not built with out-of-date empirical evidence. Their needs to be a clear link of why taking the action of the resolution is bad, and have a clear impact of why the argument is even prevalent or important. Counter-plans are fun to run, but should be realistic. It should be able to sell it’s point of why the plan should be preferred, and should have evidence backing the plan. I would like to see how the plan would be enforced also that way I don’t have to interpret it for myself.
I think a good case debate is important. I like case turns and outweighing impacts better than last minute arguments against the opponent's case being brought up because you were too busy trying to sell your own points. Defense is good, but their needs to be some sort of offense. Otherwise I have sat through a debate listening to two different sides of the topic without any clear turns or rebuttals, and I don’t think that makes for a good debate whatsoever. What ends up happening is entire contentions being dropped, and nothing for me to vote on other then who was a better speaker. I think debates should be more than that so make sure there is a genuine clash between the two cases, and not just you reading off your case and a bunch of backfiles of evidence just building already made arguments.
You should have a well developed Kritik shell when running this strategy. You should provide a general analysis of how it is related to the round, and have a clear link to how the argument is topical with the resolution. You should give a clear reason why I should vote for your K and how it should be weighed in the round. An alternative provided after the K would be preferable, especially if the implications of the K are applicable to the pre-plan world. If you are to go against a debater running a K, it’s important that you attack the framework of the debate as the kritik your opponent runs sets up the standard of the debate. I think it’s important that the opposing debater tries to control framework as it is a major part of any LD debate.
I don’t have much experience when it comes to this particular debate strategy. I’ll vote for whatever as long as the theory is constructed well and clear as to what it is advocating. The theory should have the four parts of a basic theory shell (interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). The standard the theory sets up should be realistic, and be able to clearly show why the interpretation is good for the debate. The warrant should clearly give a reason for why I should consider your theory. The usual voter is fairness and education, but feel free to read any voter you think of as long as you can warrant why it is important for the debate.
I don't care what perspective you take when speaking on a bill. The more unique the takes, the better. I just ask that you don't be homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist. It should go without saying but be respectful and have fun!
To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all.
To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I have no preference in how you present your argument, just do it well.
I am open to all arguments as long as there is a good link chain that is well defended. If you present an off the wall argument and defend it well, I will probably consider it heavily. Treat me as a lay judge. There must be well flushed out impacts for me to consider. These impacts must be brought up in the constructives or they will not be weighed. Do not use any abusive arguments.
Use good evidence. Don't quote blogs or shady journalists. I will ask for cards if I believe you are reading me crap. I judge quality over quantity. Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.
IF you are going to read fast, read your tags slow and clear, then you can go as fast as you want. Be sure to be clear. If I can't understand you, I will put my pen down, thus signalling you've lost me. However, as long as you read tags clearly, I won't doc speaks.
Weighing is the most important part of PF. Use your impact calculus to explain why your argument should be voted on.
Be sure to compare values and value criterion and explain why I should favor yours over your opponents. Also, explain why your case ties into your values.
Speak clearly. Act like you actually care and that you aren't just trying to get another speech in. At least try to act like you know what you're talking about. Don't just spew B.S. trying to gain an emotional response.
I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be running them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.
Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.
Update for Online Debate
Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.
Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.
I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.
Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2.
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author’s use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.
When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.
If you want to read a critique of debate, I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.
LD - *update for TOC
If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of mining bad but you don't defend a way to end said mining then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.
If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.
I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.
I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
I will update this throughout the day. My old paradigm was deleted when I created a new account. Here's the basics for now:
Speed is okay, but do not sacrifice clarity just to go faster. I really don't like listening to garbled speeches full of ums, uhs, oh-yeahs, and the like. I can listen to it, but I don't like it at all and I think you're better than that. Besides, I've done wpm research on disfluent spreading and the truth is you're not going faster when you double-clutch breathe and run over your own words.
Clash is what debate is all about. Make it happen. Answer every important argument your opponent makes. If you're not going to answer some arguments, you still have to tell me why they're not important enough to answer or I'm going to assume you're avoiding them because you don't have good answers. That's not good. Practice grouping, too. I really appreciate the efficiency of grouping arguments and answering them with single responses.
Impact analysis should always refer back to the weighing mech for the round. It's great that something has high probability and magnitude, but what does that have to do with the way you've told me to evaluate the argument? Explain.
I also like end-of-speech summaries. This isn't going to win or lose you the round, but it's very nice. I like them way more than I like overviews. Give me a good "at the end of the day, judge..." something before the timer goes off and it'll go a long way in helping me understand the core momentum of your position.
Oh... and please please don't ramble on after your time expires. End your speech before your timer goes off. I'd appreciate it.
Okay. Check back for updates between rounds. Sorry I had to write this so quickly.
Hi!! I primarily competed in LD in high school at Cabot High School and then in Parliamentary Debate at Arkansas State. I no longer debate but now judge periodically. I have many specific viewpoints on debate but do not desire you to be confined to me. Too many times in competition did I intentionally run (or in most cases not run) cases that were catered to who my judge was. Speech and Debate are supposed to be safe educational activities to express yourself. So have fun. I want you to enjoy the round and not resent having a specific judge. Of course, I do have viewpoints based on my own experience but at the end of the day, it's not right for you to have to fit my box. Run what you want, as long as it's not harmful to others, and enjoy.
Arkansas Debaters- I am not "traditional." Do not fear, I will give you a sizable RFD as a method to improve your craft. You do not have to dumb it down, change the wording, or anything else odd like that. You can run positions others might not allow (CP, T, K, Disads.) Just know what you're talking about. Don't run something just to do it, understand the material you are about to tell me. Be creative and engaging with both sides of the flow. But, do not desensitize yourself to very real things in this world just to win the ballot.
Clarity over speed always. Quality outweighs quantity always. Analysis and explanation are more important than many small cards. Please tell me where you are on the flow. I live for a good line-by-line.
Please be cautious of discussing extremely sensitive material and think of how it could affect those in the room. This is not one of the cases where forgiveness is easier to give than permission.
Respect peoples identities
I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
Note: Due to my busy lifestyle, I do not have a ton of background knowledge on these topics. So please do not assume I know all of your literature immediately.
TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.
Tech over truth
Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.
I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.
THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:
Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge
Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion
When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over
Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately
Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.
Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments
Remember to extend your arguments
Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format
Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal
During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.
Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated
Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.
Cabot High School
I joined the Cabot Forensics and Debate program in 2015 and have remained in the program since. I exclusively entered the Debate program in 2017. My experience is restricted to Congressional Debate, yet, I have debated PF and IPDA once. I have a basic grasp of LD and CX, so in the very unlikely case that I judge either event - go easy on me. I’m tech > truth, however, if the argument is demeaning or discriminatory of others or blatantly racist, homophobic, etc… I will not accept it. I love the assertiveness and action in debate but I do not support aggression in which nears the boundary of not being a civil debate. I am also quite the history buff, I’m Quiz Bowl team’s history guy which should say a lot. An occasional history reference or joke is appreciated and may help me keep track.
For the most part, I consider arguments to be like building blocks. Good arguments represent the larger blocks while a multitude of not-very-big arguments represents smaller ones. In summary, I prefer the larger building blocks - they’re much more fun to play with after all. However, I do believe that the smaller building blocks can stack up to be greater than the larger ones but they must be in unison to form a larger argument. On somewhat the same topic, do not card dump - please. Save your last names for when they are relevant. I tend to focus on the content of the presented evidence rather than who justified it or reaffirmed it. Yet, make sure to repeat if it runs off so I can flow. In cross-examination or crossfire, whichever you’d like of course, I love the action. It is standard to not flow this portion of the debate yet I do make additional notes if a debater performs well, yet I will rarely make any additions to my flow of arguments since this portion of the debate is not meant to introduce anything new and rather reaffirm previously stated ideas. So, again, it’d be a good idea to not bring up anything important during that time - bring out your inner Ben Shapiro but don’t be negligent, ignorant, or arrogant about it.
For Congressional Debate specifically, I will restate that I have three years of experience in such a form of debate and with parliamentary procedure. In a traditional debate event, usually, the arguments are judged more than how they are spoken. Yet, in Congress, I will balance the two and look both at the speaker and the arguments presented. In regards to the speaker and their quality of speaking, when you are recognized by the chair to speak please make sure you announce your last name and code and make sure you are speaking to where the entire chamber can hear - just the general stuff like that, so as long as you do that we’ll be on good standing. One thing to note though, and it had to be in its own sentence, DO NOT SPREAD. Simple. Anyways, you do not (in NSDA at least) have to state your name and code when rising to motions, points, or other forms of parliamentary procedure that are not speeches. I will not judge your parliamentary procedure use, although, if you do know what you’re doing then I may make a complimentary remark on the ballot. Now, in regards to the arguments, be creative with them but do not be outlandish with them. Fun arguments lighten up the chamber but they should not distract from the item being debated. Contrary to traditional Congressional Debate, I actually really enjoy it when new, however, better arguments are introduced toward the end of the debating period. This keeps the chamber awake and the fervor for argumentation going rather than having all the arguments being repeated toward the end, therefore making it seem the chamber is depleted and depressed. So, if it were me, introduce your good arguments first, but then introduce your best arguments last.
For PF, IPDA, and somewhat LD I see the event’s speaker and audience like a commons area. They are addressed by the common man to the common man. After all, PF literally is meant to be a style of debate for a public forum. So, with these, do not try to use hard-to-understand debate vocabulary or strategies. I am very familiar with the world around me, so it’s quite likely that I will have some prior knowledge about the topic at hand. Again, I want to see action playing out but make sure to contribute time to ensure you convince me why to vote for your side. Really that’s all you have to do with me in these events, just make sure you convince me, solidify your arguments while pulling them into the impact and show how it outweighs.
For CX, again, I have minimal experience in and do not expect to judge it. Yet, in the case I do let it be known: I do not like spreading, so go slow. If you go too fast I will not hesitate to cease flowing. Based on the concept of a counter-plans, I’m for them and would use them myself depending on the situation. Automatically proposing a counter-plan will intrigue me, yet, nonetheless, you still have to argue for it and defend it from your opponents - does not mean I will go for it regardless. For Kritiks, I’m also fine with, but do not go too in-depth with it, try to stay on a base level so my mind doesn’t literally explode. Again, just make sure to explain and defend yourself. For Topicality arguments, I prefer you only read it if it’s blatantly unrelated to the resolution, however, if it is for interpretation I would still allow it as the interpretation of such provides for more argumentation.
Anyways, if you've made it this far I won't keep you much longer. Debate is meant to be educational and entertaining, so make sure to have fun!
Director of Forensics and Debate
Put me on the email chain @ email@example.com
speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)
tech over truth
I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.
I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate but Arkansas is more traditional in nature. I prefer to evaluate policy affirmatives with about three off in LD. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.
weighing.... weighing.... weighing.
I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't paraphrase evidence and completely skew the evidence.
Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...
I enjoy a well articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.
This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.
I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.
I’m not as familiar with this form of argumentation or literature, but I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just reading a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. Similar to disads, the neg block/nr should expand on the link level of the debate and then condense down to the link they are winning in the 2NR for policy. I am seeing more and more teams, taking the strategy of kicking the alt and cross-applying the links as disads on the case flow. It's important to be aware though that for some kritiks that simply kicking the alt eliminates the uniqueness level of the link debate since they are simply implications from the status quo. That’s a cool strategy, which is also why affirmative teams need to be sure to not just focus on the alternative vs. the aff but also respond to all parts of the K. I think most aff teams that read a plan should have clear framework against the K in order to weigh this aff against the alt. Like I’ve said I judge more K rounds than I expected, but if you are reading a specific authors that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work in the o/v.
I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.
If you have any questions, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am the most experienced with this type of debate, though I prefer a traditional type of Lincoln Douglas. I generally hate spreading because that should be reserved for policy, so I think it would be best for me and your opponent to slow your speech, while also being efficient with your time.
On cases, as long as the evidence or framework (fw) is not utilized to target a specific group of people, not overly offensive, and is topical, feel free to use whatever case and evidence you want.
I am not too familiar with Theory arguments, but as long as you can prove that those affect the weight of the evidence/fw of the round, I can vote based on that.
On Kritiks (K), I will vote for it as long it sufficiently provides a reason why to absolutely oppose Aff’s case and to vote neg’s better plan, or vice-versa.
For CPs, I am fine with whatever is ran and whatever issues that plan can solve in addition to what is negated.
For tech or truth, I will weigh more in tech, unless the arguments/evidence is outright false (i.e. Slavery = good).
For what I am least familiar or comfortable with, I am not sure about LARP or Phil.
-In Phil, I am familiar with most (but not all) of the schools of thought but I have not really adopted any type of thought, so I'm more or less a Phil blank slate at the moment. If you have a Phil section/case, please make it easy to understand and not dense so that I can follow along with the flow.
-For LARP, I haven't fully grasped the concept of this type of case but it seems to rely heavily on policy-esque practices, which I do not wish to judge. If that is what your case is about, keep it to a level where I can understand it as an LD judge, not as a policy judge.
Finally, on tricks. I'm fine with presumption if that is your angle but don't make purposefully vague to gain the upper-hand on your opponent; that's just unfair. If you run that anyway, I will not vote highly in your favor.
Other notes: I also enjoy some pop culture (i.e. current memes) and historical references, so I will add on speaker points if you include something of those in your speeches and if done correctly. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
I'm not entirely familiar with this type of debate, but I know it functions nearly the same format for LD, so expect some of my judge philosophy to overlap between the two. Generally, I think you can run whatever you want, but make sure it doesn't target specific people and/or is overly offensive. With that, also make sure it is topical as well.
Make sure you extend case and clash with the opponent(s). If there are dropped args on either side, they are dropped and cannot be brought back up. Also, do not bring up new args in response speeches nor final focus.
Make sure the impacts are clear. While you can tell me all of the links you can make into your arguments, it doesn't mean anything if there are no clear impacts. Along with that, crystalize and give me clear voters as to why I should for you during final focus.
Signposting/Roadmaps are also recommended, so I know what to write for what. Make sure you also make the taglines and authors clear. With that said, I will not tolerate spread/speed speaking, so if that occurs, I will stop flowing. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
This is the type of debate I am least experienced in judging-wise, so do bear in mind if I do not cover everything.
Just make sure you speak clearly and are persuasive doing so. I don't want to hear a bunch of garbage talking points just because you need to get your speaks; try to at least care about the bill/resolution at hand. Make sure to signpost your speeches as well.
If you are not entirely sure how a procedure is run, it is not harmful to give a point of information. Make sure you also know how each motion, point, etc. from Robert's Rules of Order before you spout out anything.
Lastly, the Questioning Period is a good way to get speaks and to also make the session more interesting. Try to make sure you are least somewhat involved with this part of the session, or else it will become the drabbest and most insipid session in our NSDA careers. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.
Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.
Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.
Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches
I do not love serious spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. However, if you plan on spreading, I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow- this is fine!
Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots.
I am a reasonable person and will connect some dots myself, but I appreciate any mental load you take off of me as your judge.
Don't be afraid to make me laugh :)
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
Hello, Debaters! I'm Tonya Reck and I'm a debate coach at Arkansas School for Math, Science and the Arts in Hot Springs, AR. I've taught Theatre, Communication, Speech and Debate in public school for nine years (plus a whole lot more) in both Texas and Arkansas.
First, let me say how glad I am that you are participating in a Speech and Debate tournament. I am here to to help you go forward in life and in public speaking. Win or lose your round, there is so much to gain by participating in debate, and I hope I can help to move you forward. I am also here to celebrate your accomplishments!
Are you new to debate?
If you are a novice debater- have no fear! I hope I can help recognize your strengths and help you get to the next level. EVERYONE starts somewhere. Huge props for stepping into debate! Pretty much everyone starts learning from zero. All that is expected of you is to be the best you can be here today, right, now, just as you are. You don't have to be like anyone else. Just bring you best and do that. And then don't stop. Keep learning and don't give up. You will get better every time.
Are you an experienced Debater?
If you are experienced and ready to try new things- OK. I want to support students trying new things, taking intellectual risk, learning new ways of doing things. Stay intellectually humble and gracious to all your opponents. Learn something new from every judge and every competitor. Keep growing. Keep it fresh. Listen to yourself- are you repeating debate cliché's? Using jargon? Would the average person in Wal-Mart on Saturday night understand you? Are you persuading the judge or is this an jargon/info dump. Are you making the most of every round? What are your debate goals? What do you need to do get there? Are you doing it?
Are you nervous?
Be prepared. Be rehearsed. Be well researched. Be organized. Put your energy into your debate.
What do I like to see from you in a round?
Give me the best you've got. This round is for you to shine and grow. Follow the rules, but otherwise, go for it.
I think we are all here to learn. I'm still learning, too! So, seek first to understand. Then be understood.
I like to think that this is a marketplace of ideas. So, if you are reading this with a few days ahead- take this debate topic to the dinner table, to people who see life a little different from you, to children. Have real conversations with real people. Find out how they think. How do they see your ideas? If it doesn't work on the street-- it might not fly in the round either.
How important is professionalism?
Very. Sportsmanship, kindness, humility, integrity, understanding. All of these will get you a long way in life and in debate. Ask yourself some questions? Who have I enjoyed debating against the most? Who has treated me the best as an opponent? What do I expect of myself? How can I raise the level of the round and the tournament?
Does nonverbal communication matter?
Absolutely. So often, it's not what we say but how we say it. True in life and debate.
Do I have pet peeves?
Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.
Yes. Play by the book. Don't falsely accuse your opponent of breaking rules. It's OK to be on the offense and be forward. But don't get out of bounds or run over people to get to the top of heap. This applies to life as well as debate. I often quote from the rules and official ballots in the comments.
In short, do all the good things that your teacher has taught you. Bring the very best you can and I will do my best for you to walk away with some solid advice to move forward as a debater.
I'm pulling for each one of you and wish you the best in the tournament and in life!
For this tournament, I am flowing on notebook paper... goody. Signpost well--
Hey there, I'm Damion (He/Him) and I used to debate at Cabot High School. I mainly did LD but dabbled in CX and basically everything-
Questions before round/about RFD? Text (501)353-9055.
TL;DR: Run whatever you want, as long as you can flesh it out and explain it well you are almost certainly all good.
DA/CP >= Traditional > K > Phil > T > Tricks (strike)
**This is what im most familiar with, not my favorites. I am not a huge fan of traditional LD but I can judge it, haha**
For Speed as long as you slow down on tags and listen if I call "clear" we good, although I am a little out of practice so faster spreading might go over my head. Try to avoid hyperspeed and we should be okay. The out-of-practice thing is even truer now.
As far as Traditional goes make sure to hit that V/VC, I will vote on it. It doesn't need to be the center of debate but I will look at EVERYTHING through that lens. If your opponent says "the Value is Cactus Life" and you don't refute that, I dont care about a single word you say if it doesn't have something to do with cacti.
Theory/T - If you genuinely think there is abuse in the round don't be afraid to run this. I will always hear it out. However, if you want to run super obviously specific or just weird rule strategies to get an easy ballot it's not gonna work. This is a rule we are talking about, so you have to actually convince me as a person rather than as a judge that abuse was present.
DA/CP - Love these. If it is properly structured you are all good. Really hit the impacts, DONT FORGET THE UNIQUENESS.
K/Phil - grouping these together because they both fall into the camp of "I like it, I just have no idea what you're talking about." I probably haven't read the literature and I definitely do not know the philosopher so if you run this make sure to make it extremely clear what's going on. If you can explain these really well to someone with 0 knowledge on the subject, go for it, I'd honestly love to hear it. Otherwise, maybe skip these args. For K's specifically - I am decently knowledgeable about: Capitalism bad, Communist/Socialist, and some race theories. Treat me like I don't anyway, but thought it was important if that's your route. Also-- keep it topical. At least have some form of a link, I will vote on switch-sides/FW as mentioned before. Does what we say in a debate round really matter? I severely doubt it, and you probably do too.
Tricks - No.
Anything else - feel free to ask before the round, but the general rule is if you can explain it well, it is fine. oH and don't be discriminatory, the ballot will reflect it. Debate is a space for learning and fun, not spreading ignorant hate.
Whatever you decide to run I am excited to hear your case, see you in round!
She/Her/They/Them - Radically Thotty
If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at email@example.com (Also add me to the email chain)
Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face
Go off on whatever you want
Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)
Love speed especially when clear
If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism (sorry bout it)
Also, cross-ex is like... the most important part to me...
I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).
Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bitchy, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.
IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams
KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.
Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says fvck the res that's totally fine too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.
Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've definitely voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.
TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho too ;)
DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.
CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity on CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.
Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine I guess but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.
KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for the ways in which plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.
Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.
Things I hate
- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)
- Stealing Prep
- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism, etc.
Debates supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.
If you got this far lol:
+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;) (This doesn't mean dancing btw - Asya told me I had to clarify that)
Cabot High School 2021 Alumni
I was in the Cabot Debate program for three years. I competed in PF mainly. I no longer compete so I will be coming into rounds with little to no background research, so treat me as a lay judge in that regard.
I would consider myself truth>tech because I like to know why your impacts will win the round. I prefer fleshed-out arguments, so make sure that you explain exactly what will happen and why it will happen for me.
PF- It's public forum, so don’t spread. Other than spreading, speed is fine if it is clear. Anything I can’t understand won’t flow, so make sure you articulate well. In summary you should streamline the debate instead of responding to 20 different cards read through the round. Summary should also begin the weighing for the final voters so that I know where to vote in the round. If both summary and final focus do their job, I will know exactly where to vote and why.
LD- Speed is fine if it is clear. I would like good debate on the value for the round. Let me know which framework is better and why. I'm not a very experienced LD judge, but I will try to judge based on the impacts presented in your arguments and the weighing given for them.
Congress- I am looking for good speeches as well as questioning. Try to participate as much as possible. Be ready to debate both sides, it is an important part of debate.
Cross is a good place to bump your speaks, but for anything brought up in cross to be weighed, you MUST mention it in your speech.
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
I judge majorly based on the flow. This means that I primarily look at argumentation and refutation. Are your arguments well supported, is there a clear warrant and impacts, do your refutations directly apply to and negate your opponents points, did you drop any points, etc.? In order to ensure a good flow, so that I can better judge the round, competitors should not spread and should use signposts during speeches. I do not tolerate ad hominem fallacies (personal attacks to the opponent) within debate rounds. Debate should remain respectful to all parties involved, this includes groups of people being debated about or mentioned within the debate, not just the competitors and judges.