Tabroom.com

NSDA Last Chance Qualifier

2022 — NSDA Campus, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sophie Alber Medina Senior High School None

Pankaj Arora Jasper High School

Vimal Arora Del Norte High School

Arindam Banerjee Mission San Jose High School

Mitch Barry Millburn High School

Scott Beery Clark HS None

Bryan Benitez Delbarton School

Shubhra Bhattacharya Flower Mound High School

Julia Bittencourt Poly Prep Country Day School

Kelley Blaine Denver East High School None

Kristi Bogy Midlothian HS

Brett Bonnete Jordan High School

David Brewer Lewis Palmer High School

Janet Cagley Fullerton Union High School

Anita Chang Davidson Academy Online

Logan Christianson Cherry Creek High School

Steve Clemmons Saratoga HS

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:32 PM PDT

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

David Coates Edina High School

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Beth Luzann Cole Hire

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:29 AM EDT

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Maddie Cook Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:38 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Ana Czachor Ransom Everglades

Rachel Dauer DSST Byers High School None

Satish Deshmukh Bellarmine College Preparatory

Ara Emrikian Medina Senior High School

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School

Syed Fazal Horace Mann School

Natalie Fernandez American Heritage Broward HS

Grace Findley The Potomac School

Last changed on Sat January 16, 2021 at 8:35 AM EDT

Hi I'm Gracie! (she/her)

Experience: 3 years of PF at Boca High and 3 years of experience in different debate events at Florida State (NPDA, BP, Civic/Social Justice, NFA LD literally once).

For Online Tournaments:

- Yes, add me to the email chain: gracea.findley@gmail.com

For PF:

TL;DR: Tech > Truth. Turns/DAs need to be responded to in second rebuttal. Final focus should mirror the summary. Default to cost/benefit analysis, but easily persuaded to filter the round through whatever framework you see fit. Speed is ok, but please don't spread. And please do not drop warrants (especially in the back half of the round!)

If anything is unclear in my paradigm, just ask me before the round!

Specific Thoughts on Debate

1) I default to tech > truth. Additionally, if you're winning a claim on the flow (technically), I'm more likely to evaluate it as true. But don't just assert things as random truths and expect me to vote on them. With this being said, I am a sucker for a good narrative. In the back-half of the round I love when teams re-explain their arguments, especially on the warrant level and use this as a basis to explain how they're winning. If you do this it helps make my decision much easier as I am not just voting on the flow but also on clear argumentation.

2) If you drop warrants, I drop you. Please don't make this mistake. I think warrants are the most important argument in the round, so I will evaluate this first. Lack of warrants assume I am all knowing and sometimes arguments that are clear to you are not clear to me, so ensuring I understand the premise of your argument extends from your ability to provide clear warrants. This means I expect analysis not only on the impact level but also on the link level. Assuming you are winning a warrant and going straight to impact weighing will make me unlikely to vote for you.

3) Second rebuttal is required to frontline all offensive arguments made against their case. This includes turns and DAs. It will make my flow a lot cleaner if you also begin to frontline defensive arguments in this speech, but it's not something that I require.

4) Anything you want me to vote off of NEEDS to be in the summary. Now that the summary is three minutes long, I expect first speaking teams to extend defense in summary. Please don't try to bring up things in final focus that were missing in summary.

5) Absent any framing in the round, I default to a cost/benefit analysis. In debates that don't touch heavily on framing, I tend to lean aff on risk of solvency. This also means I lean aff/non-squo went presented with "risk of offense" or "try-or-die" framing.

6) I don't have much experience competing in or evaluating theory rounds. I will try my best to evaluate it, but proceed with caution at your risk. For reference, here's what I think about some of the more popular theory arguments being read in PF.

a.) "Give us 30s" - Nope. Please, please, please don't read this in front of me. If you want a 30, follow my paradigm.

b.) Disclosure - Disclosure is good for debate, regardless of big or small school and especially for online tournaments.

7) I will not time you. Please keep track of your own time for both speeches and prep.

8) K's without policy alternatives are ok as the negative (b/c negative fiat isn't really a thing in PF), but I'm not a huge fan of non-topical affirmatives. My background is not in critical literature, so please make sure your arguments are very well explained in the back-half of the round.

9) If you are going to read an overview, there needs to be some sort of "turns case" explanation clearly flagged on the flow. I am not a fan of disads with new impacts out of the rebuttal.

10) I will call for evidence if I think it's misconstrued or if a team tells me to. I have no preference whether you give me a PDF/webpage or a cut card.

11) Don't spread, even if you offer to send a doc. I competed on the national circuit in PF though, so I can follow if you speak more quickly than conversational rate but please at least slow down for author names and dates.

For Speaker Points:

1) If author names are either dropped or not read, I will lower speaker points. Author names are the bare minimum - you should also be reading dates.

2) Weighing and really any sort of contextualization is the easiest way to boost your speaks. This is more than just claims like "we win on scope." As stated above, warrants are crucial to all argumentation; in addition to giving me a reason to prefer your analysis over anything your opponents bring up.

Beth Fisher Davidson Academy Online

Conrad Flake Skyline

Tyler Gamble The Kinkaid School

Laurie Gilbertson Denver South High School None

Lauren Godbey Denver South High School None

Ash Gomez Hire None

Kate Hamm Ransom Everglades

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Adam Hassan Hire

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 4:38 PM -06

If you don't know what something means, just ask specific questions before the round
Add me to the email chain: adamkadaban(AT)gmail(DOT)com

Updated for Blue Key

I'm not familiar with the arguments on this topic. Make sure to be very explicit when referencing something you think I might not know about.

Background

I did 4 years of PF for Cypress Bay High School

I'm currently a student at the University of Florida studying computer science/cyber security and sociology

CX/LD:

I have little experience with technical argumentation. I will evaluate most anything you read as long as you make sure I understand it (ask before round if you have any doubts). Read my PF paradigm if you want more info on my judging style.

PF:

General

I do not need a roadmap. Just tell me where you're starting and tell me where you're going during the speech (signpost). If you're reading an off-case argument, then just lmk

I'm okay with speed but don't speak faster than needed

I won't be timing. All of you should be timing each other. If you are overtime, finish your thought and end

Case/Rebuttal

If you're spreading and want me to flow card names, pause after you read the author.

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews).

I will probably not vote off of theory unless there is a serious abuse, don't run it as a cheap way to win.

Don't read any dumb arguments. I'm generally tech > truth but will not vote for a conceded argument if it is dumb. I have a decently high threshold for what I consider dumb so if you think your case is fine, it probably is. Use common sense here.

I prefer to have a clean flow with clear extensions. Number your arguments/responses if you can and it will make things much easier for me. Overarching / narrative-based arguments are cool if they're short and if you think it'll make me understand something better.

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an"Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You NEED to extend warrants and impacts into the final speeches. I want to intervene as little as possible and the best way for me to do that is for you to tell me exactly what out of all the arguments you read I should be voting for. Voters are also very useful.

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

Evidence

If you want me to call for a card - tell me.

Crossfire

Won't flow, but I will most likely listen. If any concessions are made, bring it up in a speech

Speaker Points

I usually give around 28's to the losing team and 29's to the winning team. Do the stuff below to get closer to a 30:

Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged. Just don't make fun of your opponents, unless y'all are tight in which case use discretion. Weigh and signpost well.

Effectively pull off a cool strategy I haven't seen before.

If you have a Carded Case, send it to the email chain (my email is at the top) and I will give you half an extra speaker point

Some Pet Peeves that might make me like you less

Talking over your opponents or "whispering" loudly while they're speaking

Taking time to preflow when the round should have already started

Vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents

Any smugness or smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument

How to lose

Ay panini, don't you be a meanie. (seriously, if you're excessively rude you will lose)

Any sexism/racism/homophobia... will give you 20 speaks or lower.

cheat

Razak Hossain Del Norte High School

Edward Jiang Bellarmine College Preparatory

Harrup Kaur Bellarmine College Preparatory None

Dorothy Kellner Fairview HS

Amol Kher Bellarmine College Preparatory

Praveen Konda Bellarmine College Preparatory None

Geordano Liriano Riverdale Country School

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 8:54 PM EDT

Email Chain: Geodb8 AT gmail dot com

[…]

Debated in the New York Urban Debate League (Bronx Law) 2008-2014 and the University of Iowa 2014-2019.

Summer Lab leader: 1x ECLI, 1x DDI, 2x NYUDL, 3x Cal Berk, 1x GDI.

Argument assistant: West H.S., McQueen H.S., Lane Tech H.S., and most recently, CSU Long Beach.

General thoughts:

I vote for the team that did the better debating. I default to first weighing the impact calc debate and focus almost exclusively on the flow to determine what arguments to evaluate. I do not like judge intervention and prefer you all successfully determine the best metric to evaluating the debate.

Speaker points:

While speed is completely fine, please do not sacrifice clarity to “get through a card,” it translate to poor spreading and muddles the rest of the speech. Remember to follow your roadmap, allocate time, sign post, and commit to line-by-line refutation. Refrain from disorganization, shadow extensions, and poor rhetorical skills. While all Cross examinations are open, consider they are as important to your speaks as constructives and rebuttals.

Affirmatives:

Whether or not you read a plan is less important than winning offense against a competing strategy, procedural violation, or DA. In short, win that the aff is a good idea/performance/policy implementation.

a) K/Performance AFF’s

I think 1ACs should be tangibly related to the resolution. 1ACs are research projects and yearly resolutions are the result of a research paper written and voted for by the community. Effectively your AFF is a response to community consensus and their underlying assumptions.

K’s

Critiques are arguments based on philosophical inquiries. If you do not know or understand the philosophy you are advancing it will likely show throughout the debate and can negatively effect speaker points. More importantly, I will not fill in gaps for inaccurate or poor-quality arguments. Remember I focus on what’s happening/the flow.

That aside, I am very familiar with philosophies across numerous cannons.

CP’s

Neg has the burden to prove mutual exclusivity, a CP without a net benefit is just another plan and plan plan debate isnt a thing, the permutation will probably win every time.

a) Method debates

While I am sympathetic to “no-perms,” the negative must prove a link greater than omission. The best Counter methods are stylistically, theoretically or methodologically different than the 1AC then generate offense based on those differences.

Procedurals

a) T/FW

Topicality is a debate about words, the (mis)use of them and their importance. T’s appendage, Framework is a heuristic for debate, a vision for how competitors should engage the activity. While the words topicality and framework are used interchangeably a good debater will identity what they are being called to answer/defend so to make more convincing arguments.

i) Framework specific

Limits is an internal link to a terminal impact; K aff counter interpretations should be bound by the resolution; ontology/epistemology arguments are responsive to FW; I usually vote for FW on TVAs, ground, and procedural fairness.

b) Theory

Easiest debates to decide. Difficult debates to execute. Do not go for theory if you aren’t informed of the meticulous refutation you must accomplish to get the ballot. Believe it or not, there was once a time people went for theory their entire final rebuttal. Conversely, ask whether those few seconds amounts to a W or just defense to prevent the other team from winning on theory.

c) Ethics violations:

These are acts or words done by a competitor that deserves ending the debate. Preferably the tournament organizers resolve the alleged issue. This includes card clipping.

Card clipping claims STOP the debate. Note: I am always either following a speaker on my own pc or listening for the last word they say in each card.However, a card clipping violation requires the claimant provides evidence otherwise I will be stuck piecing together what I believe happened as opposed to whatI know happened.

A more subtle way of committing an ethical violation is stealing prep.

I use to steal prep. Only in the sense that I put my plastic podium, laptop, flow, and sent out the email chain after prepping. But the intentional stealing of prep, actively writing materials, organizing speech docs or speaking to your partner is not fair and excessive prep stealing will result in considerable speaker point deductions.

DAs

Quick observation —the community has elected to have these debates in various parts of the flow as opposed to just a DA page. Linear DAs are on an all time high and overlooking these random DAs may cause a card to turn into a viable strat.

DA proper —I subconsciously rely on an offense/defense paradigm on every flow and can follow internal link chains so I am game for traditional DA debates.

En fin

I start deciding who won by organizing my flow in order of importance, I read evidence if contested or heavily relied on, I weigh your arguments against each other and confirm lines can be drawn between speeches so to discern new arguments.

Lastly, I’m usually flowing cross examination. Explain your arguments well, ask good questions and above all, be respectful.

—————————

Notes:

- James Roland an outstanding educator in the activity gave a lecture at the first camp I attended on being a successful Policy Debater: https://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/tag/james-rowland/

- Top 5 debate movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EacYl00YzZ0

Sheena Liu Bellarmine College Preparatory

Wes Loofbourrow Saratoga HS

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Perry Lu Flintridge Preparatory

James Lurie Denver South High School None

Ritika Maheshwari Bellarmine College Preparatory None

Danielle Martin Smithville R-II School District None

Ethan Massa Durham Academy

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 5:07 AM EDT

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

Tom McCaffrey Jasper High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 5:30 AM CDT

Tom McCaffrey

In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).

In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions; talk pretty. I look for acknowledgement of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

World Schools: a great debate event that should not sound, look, or feel like any other event. Please demonstrate that you understand, use, and respect this event's differences, norms, and value.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious.

I like POI as the most wide-open opportunity we have to connect and weave an unexpected and dazzling array of related choices to elevate an important advocacy.

In DI, HI, DUO: I think of everything we do in Speech and Debate as storytelling. Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices.

I believe speaking skills can, do, and should win tournaments. There are only two outcomes, and they're both great: you win or you learn. And you keep and add to the learning forever! Be kind and have fun!

Matt McKelvey Medina Senior High School None

Sachin Mehta Ravenwood High School

Noah Mengisteab Delbarton School

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 7:49 AM EDT

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Doug Miller Washburn Rural High School

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 8:13 AM PDT

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Dylan Morgan Theodore Roosevelt High School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 2:55 AM CDT

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to there.

PLEASE do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal, call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!

David Moyer Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches

Gabriel Ondetti Central HS Springfield

Lacrima Parau BASIS Peoria

Olga Pechuk Davidson Academy Online

Cheryl Potts Plano Senior

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Manoj Rana Bellarmine College Preparatory

Ana Ria Princeton

Yaseen Shah Millburn High School

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 5:39 AM PDT

Hello! My name is Yaseen (he/him) and I'm a sophomore at GW, majoring in finance and economics. I specialize in Congressional Debate, Public Forum Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Original Oratory. I've also competed at a multitude of nat-circuit tournaments in high school (notably Nats, TOC, ASU, etc). Below are my paradigms for PF + Congress.

PF:

-I flow

-I care about both speaking and content, but I weigh content more

-Good constructives should have clear claims, warrants, and impacts

-For rebuttals, I care most about making sure you're responsive to the argument. I appreciate args that interact with what your opponent's advocacy is

-Summaries should break down to me what matters in the round, any flaws your opponents have made, and why I should sign your ballot for your side

-Similar to summaries, I expect more weighing and impacting in final focus. Don't just tell me that your opponent is wrong. Show me and explain to me why that's the case.

-I do evaluate cross-ex. This time should be used to precisely point out flaws in your opponents' cases, clarify any misconceptions, or ask an important question that'll be important later. Please answer the question that's asked of you and don't try to squirm around it (I can tell haha).

-Be respectful. I'm totally cool with being aggressive, but there's a fine line between assertiveness and belligerence. I don't tolerate disrespect.

If y'all have any questions, please reach out and I'm more than happy to provide in-depth feedback! Best of luck! :)

Congress:

-I'm a sucker for good introductions. An intro and outro is wonderful for Congress speeches

-Please have warrants and impacts for your claims. They should be explicit and they should be articulated in a manner that forces me to care about x arg

-I don't care when you present your speech. You should be contributing to the round and your speech shouldn't be a regurgitation of something I heard earlier. I value a great constructive, but I also value a crystal that succinctly breaks down the round for me

-Congress is a blend of speech and debate. Both your content and presentation matters; however, I weigh content more purely because I believe logos is so important in a Congress round

-Please clash. If you're speaking after the first cycle and I don't hear a lot of clash, I'll be very disappointed and sad.

-I rank presiding officers. If you value brevity and equity, you're a superstar.

-Cross-ex is really important to me. If you point out clear flaws in your peers' argumentation, you'll receive bonus points and a higher ranking from me.

-Be respectful. I'm totally cool with being aggressive, but there's a fine line between assertiveness and belligerence. I don't tolerate disrespect.

email: yaseennaveedshah@gmail.com

Saurabh Sharma Mira Loma High School

Brenda Shouse Hire

Chris Stabile Medina Senior High School None

Shane Stafford The Blake School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:36 AM CDT

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

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Stewart Millburn High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:39 AM EDT

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Simon Storer Jonesboro

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Litian Swen Horace Mann School

Malissa Szanty Medina Senior High School

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:06 AM PDT

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Michelle Torok Denver East High School None

Tyler Unsell Park Hill High School None

Carolyn Vicari Ridge High School

Adhar Walia Mission San Jose High School

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:33 AM PDT

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

Neal White Clark HS

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:42 PM CDT

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

James Whitmire DSST Byers High School None

Lyle Wiley Hot Springs Co High School

Melisa Wilson Flintridge Preparatory

Tracy Zhou Horace Mann School

Last changed on Tue February 28, 2023 at 8:52 AM EDT

Hi! I'm writing this for my mom as a debater :)

For state quals 2023: She knows the resolution, but not the specific arguments.

Most important: She is a parent judge who is not a native English speaker. I cannot emphasize how important it is to speak slowly.

Path to her ballot: Lay adaptation! Please speak clearly, slowly, and non-aggressively. She will not vote for you if you are rude. Speak well, be chill. Be respectful in cross, mildly assertive at most.

READ THIS: I have told her that in both summaries and final focuses, at the TOP of each speech, there will be weighing. Please read this sentence at the beginning of each back half speech: "Judge, even if you 100% buy their argument of XXX, we still win based of our argument of XXX, here's why: ..." Please assume that she will buy at least some of each side's case, and here is a great time to practice your comparative weighing. Tell her why your impact outweighs, even if your opponents also win their impact. If you do not do this weighing at the top of each back half speech, you will probably lose.

Constructive: Make your case very clear. No convoluted link-chains with weird impacts. Clear warranting. 100% serious, I highly recommend reading a 500-600 word, single contention case.

Rebuttal: Please number your responses, and make sure to be clear on what you are responding to. Second rebuttal should frontline, but make it clear when you are, and what specifically you are frontlining.

Summary: If you didn't listen to me and read more than one contention: COLLAPSE. Both summaries should go for just one argument. Please make it clear when you are addressing your case, and when you are addressing your opponents' case.

Final Focus:Same as summary basically, make it clear what she is voting on, aka make clear the name of the argument, what the argument is, and why you are winning it.

Miscellaneous but important:

Short off-time roadmaps before every speech.
Please signpost when you are switching flows.
Absolutely zero jargon, and don't emphasize turns, she won't understand. Please do not drop case for a turn.
keep your own time
don't bother with telling her to read evidence/evidence debates, it won't matter.

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Last Chance Qualifier

2022 — NSDA Campus, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges