CHSSA Middle School State Championship
2022 — Online, CA/US
Asynch Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)
Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)
B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)
- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.
REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)
Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!
1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.
2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.
2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.
2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.
3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!
4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM
I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.
- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.
- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)
- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.
- I identify as a Classical Liberal.
- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.
- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.
- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.
- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.
- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI
I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.
Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.
If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.
speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.
Hi I'm a parent judge with limited SPAR and PF judging experience. This is my first time judging Impromptu. Please try to speak slower and more clearly. Thank you and best luck in the tournament!
I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.
Leland '22, Berkeley '26
I did speech and debate for 4 years in high school but mainly did LD! I haven't debated or judged since March 2022 so please dont use random debate jargon bcs I might not understand it.
I'm super big on respect and being nice to your opponent! Please be cordial and just a good person, we're all here to have fun and learn something new so please leave the weird reactions and rude comments at home/in your hotel rooms. If you don't respect your opponent or me I'll tank your speaks.
Some General Tips:
- Don't spread. I won't be able to flow most of your arguments if you do.
- Speak confidently!!! Even if you do not know what you're talking about I don't know that, so just fake it till you make it
- PLEASE do not say you "solve" for issues like racism, poverty, sexism, world hunger, etc (or other issues you are not going to solve with one resolution). It's lowkey very insensitive and sounds weird coming from a high school debater (who comes from a lot of privilege.) Please call your opponents out if they say this.
- CLASH CLASH CLASH!!! It's honestly really frustrating to see debaters talk about completely different things during the round and do not engage with each other. It makes judging a lot harder and makes everything really messy. Engage with your opponent's arguments, a response is better than no response.
- Don't have crazy link chains. Make sure your impacts from links are clear and make sense and don't need 10 links.
- SIGN POST! If you don't sign post I won't flow it. Just do it, it makes everyone's lives easier.
- Weigh your arguments! If you weigh well you'll probably have my ballot.
- Value and Value Criterion are so important. Please make sure your framing is fair and makes sense. This is what makes LD debate unique so please spend time on it
- CX is so important! Use this time for strategic questions. It can really make or break the round so use all the time you can,
- Make sure you have a story that flows throughout your case. It helps me understand your side more and makes the debate more interesting.
- Don't drop arguments! Always respond to everything and collapse to voters in your final speech
- Make voters clear and concise. I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why you won.
- Feel free to ask any other questions in round too :)
- Please don't ask too many POIs and on the same note don't ignore all your opponent's POIs. Be reasonable and engage with your opponent without bombarding them with questions
- Please frame the debate at the top just for clarity
- Make sure you collapse to key points and voters at the end.
Other than that have fun, that's genuinely the most important thing!
If you have any questions email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
hello!!! [she/her] :)
i've been doing speech (and only speech) for three years, so you can bet that i am pretty unfamiliar with debate. but just some general things to help me out since i'm pretty inexperienced:
-please do not talk super fast or spread, i will probably have a hard enough time keeping up at normal speed
-signpost!!! clarity is very nice and cool
-don't be mean or rude -- it does not look good
-more speaker points if you are funny or you crack a joke :D (trust me, my sense of humor is so bad i will laugh at basically anything)
-i will be Lost most of the time so please be patient and help me out if i do something wrong (which i am bound to do)
-please enjoy this image for reading my paradigm:
-i hope that you have a cold pillow to sleep on tonight, thank you very much :]
Short Paradigm due to time contraints writing this
4th year of debating
I am fine with Plans, CPs, Ts, and K debates. I do flow the debate, and consider tech over truth in the debate. Please do not misgender your opponents.
Magnitude- Why I should vote for you, for example the economy increasing is only meaningful if it is helping people. Make those link chains solid.
Structure- Signpost clearly, if I can't flow it I can't vote on it. I can follow speed if it is clear but please try to be considerate.
Please speak at moderate speed and be very clear on contentions and subpoints.
Please be respectful during CX
Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness.
Evidence/Case Email: email@example.com
Flay Judge: I have minimal experience competing in PF as I was a speech competitor. However, after becoming the director of a program recently that is PF heavy, my students have been teaching me how to flow and follow debates. Granted, I'm not perfect, but I received my Masters Degree in Rhetoric & Argumentation at Cal State Los Angeles. I can keep up with most theory cases when applied properly. I am very fond of Critical Theories in particular, so if you have an interesting angle to share on the debate space, feel free to pursue it at your own risk. Spreading is something I will try to keep up with, but I prefer 200 to 250 WPM. I will flow the debate in its entirety and you can take pictures of the flows after the round is complete. This is for your education and also meme potential.
I take the character debate very seriously. I am not fond of shock & awe/performative arguments and will drop these from the flow entirely. While I do not vote on character alone, please be mindful of how you address your opponents. Treat them as human beings and more than that, separate the person from their beliefs. Attack their arguments, not their person. I expect all debates to be civil, peaceful, and more of a discourse rather than a rhetorical assault.
Of course, I will give decisions and RFD's after the round (even when the tournament says not to). While I do not take questions during the RFD process, feel free to approach me after the round for feedback. I do not respond to questions that contest my decision as a judge, but I will explain in great detail the RFD to students who wish to improve themselves for the next round.
Paradigms aside, I'm proud of you for taking on debate in such crazy times. Keep up the great work and I look forward to flowing your round! :)
- Add me to your email chain, firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Please time yourselves.
- Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
- (Pertaining to parli) I’m not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
- Be aware of your opponent's speed preferences and adjust accordingly when they call clear/speed. If you don't, I will take off speaker points.
- Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
- I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I won’t make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
- I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
- I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
- K’s should only be run when the other side believes it’s more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please don’t assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
- I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why it’s both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
- I really really like to see clash within a debate.
- Extend arguments!
- Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I don’t want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
- I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
- Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
Hello! I'm a college student who formerly competed in forensics for two years in high school. I used to do Original Oratory and Original Interpretation, as well as editing others' scripts. I've spectated debate rounds before, but the bulk of my experience is with speech events.
Before anything else, keep etiquette in mind. Listen to your fellow competitors and treat each other with respect.
For speech, I will be looking at the content you present first and the cohesiveness and flow of your script second. Any person watching your event should know what your message (or takeaway) is at the end of the round.
Blocking, use of props (if applicable), enunciation, volume, and so on are also important. When it comes down to it, though, it will be those three things in particular that I will be able to give the most feedback on.
For debates, I will be looking for a traditional debate. Roadmaps are highly encouraged, no spreading, and make sure to signpost. I will be flowing during the round. Again.. no spreading.
No matter the event type, I will be taking notes as you present and listening actively. This is so I can give you the best critiques and comments possible on your ballot. I look forward to hearing what you have to say!
add me to your email chain!
>> email email@example.com
Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. firstname.lastname@example.org
OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.
Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.
Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.
UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.
I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^
UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at email@example.com
For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.
Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.
anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.
I am an experienced parent judge.
1. Clear speaking that is not too fast.
2. Evidence is clearly explained to support your arguments and don't forget to highlight your impacts.
3. Incrementally advancing your idea, while invalidating/outweighing opponents ideas.
4. A good cross examination is key.
5. The deciding factor for me is the cross examination, wrapping up with a clear explanation on why you outweigh your opponent.
6. I flow the arguments and I'm listening carefully, so if you drop an arguments, I will know :) In other words, check your flow before saying your opponent dropped something.
7. Come prepared!
8. Speak assertively, but don't yell :)
I'm a parent judge. I've been judging various tournaments, specifically debates, for many years. I prefer slow, clear, and structured arguments.
I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:
Approach to Judging:
1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.
2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.
3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.
4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.
5. Please no theory or kritiks.
6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.
7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.
8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.
Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.
Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!
speech-only & lay judge. explain things to me like im a baby.
I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.
Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)
For all Debate:
- Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
- General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
- I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
- When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
- Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
- Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
- Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.
For Public Forum:
- PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
- Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
- On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
- Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
- I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
- Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
- Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.
- On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
- On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
- On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
- Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
- Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
- On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
- Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
- NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
- Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.
yall know the drill, be organized, sign post, speak clearly, and have good impacts!
pls don't bombard ur opponents with POIs
not really familiar but i'll be chill if everything is explained well
prob best to treat me like a parent judge that has debate knowledge bc i'm not too technical or anything
have fun don't be mean :D
hello! im ava; my partner and i debated pf for two years under flintridge prep cy. we qualled to gold toc twice plus nationals, state, round robins, and all that jazz. i also somehow qualled to state and nietoc in parli and extemp
here is my partner's paradigm for reference: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=113569
ask questions/add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
general (this is all pf specific)
- tech>truth but tbh its easier for u to just point out untrue arguments
- frontline in 2nd rebuttal
- defense is not sticky
- extend everything ur going for in summary
- weigh & metaweigh
- if its not in summary it cant be in final; unless its new weighing in first final
- i get carried by my partner every time we debate prog so read theory at ur own risk & just dont read Ks or anything else. i love a good substance round; if u have absolutely no prep id rather u read tricks or beetle facts or sing
my judging habits (feel free to disregard but could be important for speaks)
- im not timing for u. if ur opponents go overtime hold up a timer and ill stop flowing after 10 seconds
- slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
- every time u say judge in ur speech i pull a strand of hair out of my head. i understand this may be a habit but pls dont say it 15 times within 20 seconds/as a filler word
- down to skip grand cross if everyone is
- dont ask every single person in the round individually if theyre ready
- i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1 just give ur speech
- bring me food that is not a banana or the sandwich u sat on for 45 minutes
- pls do not make the round boring i beg u
ultimately, be respectful, dont be problematic, make the round run smoothly, and have fun. cheers to an educational and enjoyable debate :')
Call me eric or judge, i use he/him pronouns, im a varsity parli main at leland, i know other debate events though! (less of policy lol)
more flow than lay
All debaters should adjust to the slowest preferred pace by the panel of judges
If you have 1 lay and 2 flows, go lay
general speaks are around 27.5-28
I will follow the tournament rules and disclose accordingly if allowed
tech>truth, will evaluate whatever args you throw at me though you have to explain things clearly if i may not know background.
I wont call for evidence, it is up to the opponents to question unwarranted and suspicious arguments
If you dont question it, i will default to believing the evidence as true
I like to flow on paper, so let me know if you want me to flow on a diff sheet
- i usually wont flow cross, but i will listen to them :D
What I like, thus what you should do:
clear introduction/transition to a different subject,
EXPLANATIONS AND ELABORATIONS (if you don't explain, I will not buy them),
A few flushed out contentions instead of like 8 different short contentions with no evidence, explanations, impacts, etc
clear background info
Like if topic is war in Jordan or something, I'm sorry... but I'm def not the most knowledgeable about what you are saying if you dont give background info
theory is like... okay, i guess, not the most well versed in technical debate, but run theory if you explain them well enough with clear impact
What I don't like:
Any rude, racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments of any sort, I will tell tab if you do any of the things I mentioned here
Laughing at opponents or even your partner (excluding LD ofc)
I am okay with spreading I guess, but if either I or the opponent(s) say "slow" or indicate that you are going too fast, then you should slow down.
The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated
Debate is an educational and chill activity and everyone here wants and deserves to learn and grow in a safe and protected environment, if you violate that and prevent that from happening, I will use my powers as a judge (and I don't want to do that to anyone)
Feel free to have a casual conversation with me before/after the round (if I don't have a round to get to) about any of my experience as a debater and I have some interesting stories that I can tell LOL
Good luck and Have fun :D