Georgetown Fall PF Online PF and LD
2022 — NSDA Campus, DC/US
OnlinePFV Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a first time judge
Name: Shifatul Ahsan Apurba
School Affiliation: BRAC University
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach
What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student
General Notes for speakers:
1. Speakers should be aware of the following information.
2. In particular, I appreciate teams that have a clear structure, can explain the implications of evidence effectively, and can correctly connect evidence to their arguments.
3. It's better if you describe the underlying trend/core problem connected with it while using proof.
4. It's critical to maintain your audience's interest. Judges' jobs are made simpler by direct comparison and weighing. In addition, you should demonstrate how your advantages exceed their drawbacks and how your advantages surpass your opponents'.
5. If you make a case for comparative advantage, be ready to back it up with evidence that connects directly to the evidence your opponent utilized.
6. You should be ready to explain why your strategy is a superior method, such as because it gets the job done faster/easier and requires fewer resources.
7. Please don't make any arguments that aren't obvious to a well-informed voter. This content will be devalued if you do this.
8. You must refrain from using any terminology that may lead to equity breaches.
9. We enjoy having a roadmap.
10. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.
11. As long as you're comprehensible, I don't mind what type of style you have. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something I respect.
12. During presentations, I have a decent amount of energy. In the heat of battle, I jot down the most salient queries and the answers given to them.
I consider myself a flay judge.
I'm not good with speed and don't prefer spreading.
I mostly look at how teams make their impacts, if the link and warrant aren't explained or extended throughout the round, that will heavily affect my decision when voting.
Don't be rude and show respect to each other throughout the round.
I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years in high school and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League, a non-profit that brings debate to underserved students in NYC.
I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy--I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with gamey things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm generally okay with some level of tech, but I don't want that to be a game--don't use tech just because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.
Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.
First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal did a good job frontlining. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal). I really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.
Please make yourself comfortable. If you're warm, feel free to take off your jacket. If you're cold, feel free to put on a hoodie. For Zoom debate, I don't mind if your camera is on or off.
Please ask me any and all questions before the round!
Debated PF for 4 years. He/they.
TLDR: I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated (and properly extended) link chain into the best-weighed impact.
For me, the most important thing is just to try your best! Other than that, try to fill all of your allotted time, clearly explain your arguments, and tell me why they matter more than your opponent’s. You got this!
- If you have questions about my judging philosophies before the round, or about my decision after the round, don't be afraid to ask. Just be respectful.
- I'm pretty tech > truth but, like all other judges who call themselves tech, I'll have lower thresholds for response if the arguments are under warranted.
- If you're going to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. in round, you're definitely getting under 25 speaks and I'm going to be inclined to vote you down because you've created a fairness skew in the round by making the debate space potentially unsafe for your opponents.
- READ CONTENT WARNINGS AND PROVIDE A WAY TO OPT OUT ANONYMOUSLY. If you're unsure whether something requires a content warning, better safe than sorry.
- I respect that y’all have a lot of content to get through and that sometimes it takes a few extra seconds, but I’m 100% not going to evaluate anything that’s 10+ seconds over time.
- I won't call for cards unless a) there's contradicting evidence that neither team resolves or b) I'm explicitly told to
- I require full extension of your offense in summary / FF. You don’t need to refer to the specific card names unless it helps you, but you definitely need the uniqueness (if applicable), warrant/link, and impact.
- Collapse plz. It makes both of our lives so much easier. This goes for defense as well; Extending, backlining, and fully implicating 1 piece of defense will always be better than blippily extending 3 responses through ink.
- Weigh your links. Weigh your impacts. Weigh your DAs (in rebuttal, preferably). 4 buzzwords without any comparative doesn't cut it though.
- Speed: If you're going to read faster than 250 wpm, please make sure your opponents are okay with that and be willing to send speech docs. I literally will not be able to catch most of your arguments if you're going significantly faster than 300 wpm, so spread at your own risk. Definitely add me to the email chain in the event that you decide that you’re unable to speak at a reasonable speed. email@example.com
- Evidence: I'm fine with paraphrasing, especially in rebuttal, but if your opponents call you on evidence that is abusively paraphrased, your speaker points will get tanked. I am also pretty receptive to paraphrasing theory.
- Cross: This isn't summary. Don't frontline their responses to your questions, just ask follow-ups. I also don't flow cross, so if your opponents make a concession, please implicate it in the next speech. Bonus points if you make me laugh.
- Rebuttal: Please warrant and implicate each response. If that means you have to read slightly fewer responses, that's totally okay. Quality > quantity any day. 2nd rebuttal should frontline all turns (or just weigh against them, that's chill too), and respond to all defense on the contention/link you're collapsing on (yes you should collapse in 2nd rebuttal).
- Summary/FF: I will buy sticky defense (responses from 1st rebuttal that 2nd rebuttal dropped) so long as it hasn't been touched at all, I don't think sticky turns are a thing so if it's something you want me to actually vote off of, make sure it's in summary.
- I'm fine evaluating theory, although I'd prefer teams only read theory in the event of a serious violation like misgendering or neglecting to read a content warning.
- I don’t really have strong opinions about disclosure. That being said, if you’re a large school reading disclosure theory against a small school, I don’t really know what to tell you except that it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care about the argument you’re reading, and I’m not inclined to vote for it.
- I'm slightly less experienced with K debate, so please explain stuff, but I'm absolutely willing to vote on them, especially if they're being used to call out offensive language/rhetoric.
- There's a 99% chance I don't evaluate your high theory, and a 100% chance I don't evaluate your tricks.
I started debate judging in 2020.
- well spoken arguments
- only evidence carried from start to finish will be taking into consideration (no new evidence in final focus)
- will not take crossfire info into consideration
- don't worry about how fast your speaking as long as it's articulate
- will flow during speeches
- be civil; keep it relevant to the topic
I am a lay judge with limited experience.
Don't go too fast. Clarity is always more important than speed.
- I'm not very familiar with debate speak. i.e "magnitude", "turn", "Uniqueness". You can use these terms, but try to explain what they mean in the later speeches.
- I will be flowing, and I will look at the arguments that each side presents when deciding my ballot.
- Second summary is too late to bring new arguments.
- No new arguments in final focus. Just make the debate clear in final focus, and explain why I should vote for you.
- Weighing is very very important. Please weigh so that I can look at the arguments more holistically.
- I don't flow cross, but I definitely listen to it.
I have been judging PF since 2010.
Please do not speak quickly - I will not be able to follow you.
I place a premium on well-supported, "real-world" links, which are to me a prerequisite to your impact, no matter how large.
I am a judge from Newton South HS, just outside of Boston, MA. I have been judging PF since 2010. I debated in high school in the early 80s. But don’t let that fool you.
FLOWING – I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. As you go faster, however, my comprehension drops. In addition to speed, I have trouble with the following: (1) Evidence tags: Because I am unable to catch most evidence tags, I probably won’t know what you are talking about when you remind me that “Smith in 17” told me something important in your partner’s last speech – unless Smith is a big deal in the round and you have talked a lot about that evidence. (2) Short argument tags, especially in the two-minute speeches, in which debaters often introduce their own argumentation structure. If you say something like, “On economic growth, remember…”, I will end up spending 5-10 seconds trying to figure out what “economic growth” argument you are referring to (and perhaps even what side of the resolution you are on). As a result, I may miss a few of your responses. It’s more helpful if you build a bit of the link chain into your tag. For example – “Our opponents say more H-1b visas boost jobs and hence economic growth, but remember…”
IMPACTS AND LINKS – I find that which side wins my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. If I don’t find your link chain compelling, I will have a hard time voting for you, even if there’s something very big at the end of that chain. Argumentation that contributes to link chain credibility includes: (1) Inferences based on rigorous analysis of empirical data – i.e., a well-designed statistical analysis. If you can explain why the data in the analysis apply to (i.e., can be generalized to) the scenario being debated in the round, and why the statistical methods mitigate the risk of invalid inferences, I will find you to be compelling. (2) Consistency with history / the world we live in – For a lot of arguments, there are no rigorously conducted statistical analyses. For example, for few statistical studies look at how policies may influence public opinion, politicians, the policies of other countries, and so forth. But if you can identify pertinent historical precedents and argue that they inform the scenario being debated in the round, I will again find you to be compelling.
LESS COMPELLING ARGUMENTS – (1) Just because Professor Smith says something is true won’t necessarily convince me unless I understand *the basis* for Professor Smith’s beliefs. Yes, I’m looking for a warrant. But hopefully, you have more than your *own* explanation for Professor Smith’s conclusion. It’s best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. (2) Pasting together links from different sources often produces less compelling arguments. For example, Source A tells us that certain policies are politically divisive; Source B says that political division leads to federal gridlock; and Source C says that gridlock delays funding for the military and undermines national security, which, naturally, causes nuclear war. A problem with this sort of link chain in my mind is that the different sources use similar phrases to describe various types of events, but they aren’t really talking about the same things. For example, is the “divisiveness” described in Source A really equivalent to the “political division” described in Source B? And is the political division described in Source B emblematic of what has caused gridlock, as documented in Source C? If your opponent fleshes out these limitations, and if they have an alternative, more plausible description of how the real world works, that could be a problem for your position.
BOTTOM LINE – Fast argumentation challenges my ability to follow you. Stretched link chains challenge my tendency to believe you. You are best off presenting an intuitive narrative (i.e., a story that is consistent with how the “real world” works) and using that narrative as your foundation for establishing why your position is more credible than your opponent’s.
Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol
I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable
Judging wise (general things)
How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.
Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused
Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here
Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mush
Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.
I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and just annoys me just do what you do best)
I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.
Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.
When you get into FWK/T debates, be sure to extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.
I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.
It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.
PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.
I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.
Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…
Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.
And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...
I think theory is procedural just make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.
Policy Affs v K:
Engage the K! Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.
How to get better speaker points with me
Be nice, be funny, be personable
Organized docs and speeches
Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4
Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30
A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever
School: Brentwood High School
I AM DEFINITELY A LAY JUDGE.
I have never participated in, or judged, any Forensic activities other than PF debate.
When judging tournaments, I am most generally following the earliest guidance I received, which is to think in terms of which team is most persuasive with their aff/neg argument. Crucial to this is whether I can effectively understand the speaker. Many students are so focused on time & getting in maximum words, that they are very difficult to understand & they undermine their own research. Do they back up statements with factual references? Do they immediately offer cards with resources cited? Do they respond to the opposing team's arguments with thoughtful, relevant data, or do they revert to an unrelated item in their own "script"? Do they stay focused on the resolution, or follow tangential topics that muddy the question at hand?
I do take notes as I am listening to each round. These are often truncated due to the speed of the speaker. I include as much information as possible in my ballot comments.
I am a parent judge and not a professional but I have judged a lot of tournaments.
I do flow and I do weigh crossfire.
Please state your contentions clearly. As in contention, one is ...
I request that you speak clearly and coherently. If you are speaking so fast that I don't understand you, your points are lost on me.
Please let me know which team is taking prep time and tell me when you start.
If you don't mention a point in the summary speech I will assume you dropped it.
ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 7 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".
I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!
I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.
Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche`; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!
Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.
SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.
YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.
Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".
NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.
In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.
I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!
I’m a parent judge, and this is my third year in debate.
1. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).
2. Talk clearly and at a normal speed.
3. Keep track of your own time.
4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.
5. I will not judge off cross-ex.
6. Weighing is important to me.
7. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled. I will ignore any new points brought up in either and speaker points will be lowered.
8. Don’t be rude, disrespectful, or passive-aggressive to opponents.
9. Anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in a "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points.
10. Have fun!
I am a parent judge.
Please Time yourself (rounds and prep)
- Please speak at a reasonable pace and be clear.
- Please be courteous
- Keep Calm.
- Speak Loud And Clear.
- Maintain Proper Body Language.
- Keep The Topic On Track.
- Respect your Opponents
I debated in PF in high school for four years.
Please stick to the spirit of PF by not speaking excessively fast.
I find arguments that are realistic to be more compelling than long link chains that hang together by virtue of obscure evidence quotations.
Hi! I'm a former speech and debate kid myself. Events I have personally competed in at least once include Parli, PF, Prose, Poetry, Storytelling, POI, Impromptu, DI, Inform and, Extemp. I also have non-tournament experience in LD, Congress, and ADS. My main events were PF, Prose, and Impromptu so many of my perspectives will be from that angle.
Just in general don't be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic or anything diminutive towards any other class of people. Also be respectful in cross. I will grade down speaker points for any hostile behavior towards your opponents.
- Signposting: DO IT! Every contention, subpoint, impact, turn etc. should be signposted. If I don't know what you're talking about/on I won't write it down. I allow and encourage off-time roadmaps (just taglines or "go down aff then neg")
- Speed: I ask that you don't sacrifice legibility for speed. If you're talking so fast that your point is unclear or you have to take pauses/breaths in the middle it isn't worth it.
- Impacts: I vote on impacts so make sure to clearly state them and weigh them with an appropriate weighing mechanism
- Cross/Questions: I don't flow cross/questions so if you make a point, bring it up in your last speech.
- Timing: Please time yourselves. I won't interrupt you once your time is up but I will stop flowing.
- Evidence: Use it for everything (debate form allowing). My email is firstname.lastname@example.org for any evidence related email chains.
Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a thirrd year student at NYU who has judged at a some over the past few years tournaments. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!
I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.
Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.
If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.
My email is email@example.com if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).
Hi, I am a parent judge who has some experience judging. I would classify myself as a lay- judge. I have a vast understanding of this topic and I can understand different view points.
-- I am looking for arguments that have a logical basis
-- Please make sure that you understand your arguments and that you do not make arguments that you can't justify.
-- I feel that debate is about bringing your logic to another level so if your argument is not clear or lacks logic, I will not vote for it.
-- Please do not spread because it will result in you losing speaker points
-- Please do not use debate jargon
--Make sure to extend your arguments and impacts into summary and final focus or else I won't evaluate them.
--Weighing is super important to me so make sure that you do it
--Do not be rude to your opponents and make sure you give them a chance to speak.
If you have any specific questions, please ask me during the round! Good Luck to you all!
I am a relatively new parent judge.
I would prefer that you speak slowly and understandably.
Please weigh and use good evidence ethics throughout the round.
I will judge based on how well each team argued and defended their point.
Lastly please remember to be kind and if you fluidly integrate a Breaking Bad reference into one of your speeches I will give you +.5 speaker points.
DO NOT SPEAK FAST, AND DO NOT SPREAD
I am a lay judge, so try to explain everything well, and clearly. You can time your own speeches, but I will also time; you must stop as soon as the timer goes off, not one second later.
Don't be disrespectful.
Greetings to All,
I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:
- Keep an eye on the time.
- Present in an orderly fashion.
- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.
- Respect each other.
- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.
- Relax and have a great round.
I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.
Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!
** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic
If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.
I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.
I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.
I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.
***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.
***Don't be a jerk.
***Please do not shake my hand.
(he, him, his)
Head Debate Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT
Email Chain/Doc: firstname.lastname@example.org
tl;dr: Clarity>Speed. I like K debate in all formats (it ABSOLUTELY DOES belong in PF). Frame the round/role of the ballot.
***Parli/February 4th CDA:***
Now's your chance to give your case a little "west-coast edge". Spread, run a Kritik, theory, framework, whatever you can't do in front of your usual judges but have wanted to try. I'll evaluate conventional argumentation too, so don't feel obligated to deviate from your normal style.
The flow determines my ballot. tech>truth; substance>style.
Time yourselves. Be decent to each other. Have fun.
"History that repeats itself turns to farce. Farce that repeats itself turns to history."
Speed is fine, just prioritize clarity and please give a road map/sign-post your arguments.
I'll vote off the flow, so your speech organization will make my job a lot easier and will benefit you on the ballot and speaker points.
I like K debate so long as the link is well-defined and the framework allows me to weigh it against your opponent's case. Due to the brevity of PF speeches, I prefer critical arguments to start in the constructives. If the second constructive happens to present a discourse link, go ahead and run the K in first rebuttal, but I'll typically have a slightly higher threshold for links on discourse than I will for a link on the resolution.
I love hyper-specific and niche uniqueness and link scenarios.
Feel free to read a plan or CP, but I'm being asked to affirm or negate the resolution, so be prepared to have, at very least, defensive answers to a topic link.
Theory is generally good, but contextualize it and give me a reason why it matters in the round. Pet peeve exception: performative contradictions. Trigger warnings are good if your case includes visceral descriptions of violence.
There is a line between witty snark and being a jerk. Stay on the correct side of it.
I have zero tolerance for bigoted rhetoric. Some rhetoric can be problematized in the content of the debate, so I use the word "bigoted" to specifically describe language that makes the debate space less safe for those within it, and stops the round outright.
Clarity>Speed. Specific acronyms might need explanation.
Rounds involving policy affs:
Specifying your agent is especially good on this topic, as the procedural implementation of the plan sets the groundwork for many core negative strategies, including T, which is probably good for the education we get out of the round.
I tend to view doves>hawks, though I will vote on US hard power good if you win the tech side of the debate.
Structural violence impacts are generally the most compelling to me.
T is a really good point of contention on this topic. Procedural implementation and the ambiguity of "security cooperation" make these debates worth having. Generally, I prefer affirmatives winning a competing interpretation over reasonability, as it sets a brighter line for what the topic should encompass. I tend to view fairness as an internal link, rather than a voter on its own.
Plan-specific DAs and counterplans are a delight. I'll evaluate and vote on generic DAs but will have a high threshold on the link level.
This goes for generic Ks as well. Explain how the aff is worse than the status quo, otherwise I will grant more credibility to the perm's ability to solve back the K.
I find performative contradiction arguments more salient than "time/strategy-skew" conditionality args.
Rounds involving critical affs:
These are my favorite rounds to judge.
Warrant out why USFG action is/isn't tenable. Generally speaking, I think radical demands of the state have good explanatory power and probably do a good job of creating a DA to USFG action - this goes for both TVAs and perms on the TVA.
In K v K rounds, some of the most compelling arguments I see are on the perm/mutual exclusivity level, and can present a fantastic educational opportunity.
Generic Ks need considerable work on the link level, but I will vote on them.
I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.
Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.
Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.
I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.
Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.
Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.
As a judge, I evaluate debaters based on the following qualities:
- Present well organized speeches so that audience can follow the arguments;
- Respond to opponents’ questions or attacks and have strategies to effectively defense his/her own arguments;
- Utilize evidence effectively;
- Respect your opponent.
masking is the considerate thing to do. please wear one. if you need one, i will have extras, so just ask me. i will forget at times as well, don't be afraid to tell me to mask if you see me without one. if the debate is online, i do not care if your cameras are off but verbal/chat cues to make sure everyone is ready would be nice.
i am the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of that, i'm double majoring in public health and black studies at johns hopkins university. i'm also a researcher in asian american critical theory with emphases on pedagogy and afro-asian history. my current projects are about asian identity debate and the history of aapi communities in baltimore. if you ever want to discuss these strategies, please reach out to me! irrelevant but also important, i am tim do's league of legends gf.
email@example.com for the email chain, the subject should indicate what i'm judging. contact firstname.lastname@example.org for other inquiries. do not email either asking for speech documents or email chains, they will not be sent to you.
i have hardly judged a debate that i haven't before, and i like surprises. debates on both side of the argumentative spectrum are so stale and innovation in this activity is so rare. you should push the limits and read new literature! i care infinitely more about form than content, but don't take that to mean i vote algorithmically. debate is a communication activity and you should be working to persuade me. oratorical skills are a fundamental component of form. seriously -- there is nothing more irritating than spreading through blocks that you whip up when you hear a trigger word. debate has turned into a game of document compilation and that is simply not a style i reward. if you can give a coherent speech with nothing but your paper flow and make eye contact, i will give you nothing less than a 29. evidence comparison and true engagement with their warrants are necessary. you need to give me a way to evaluate competing claims besides seeing what is conceded on the flow by the end of the round. not doing so is lazy debating and will result in me being a lazy judge -- do not make me have to intervene. in a lot of rounds, the role of the judge/ballot becomes irrelevant because neither team uses it to frame out their opponent's arguments or weigh. every bit that you extend in speeches should matter at the end of the round and you need to tell me why.
i care about proper technical extensions and will not "shadow extend" for you. yes, this means you need overviews and jumping into the line-by-line and neglecting a core component of your argument in a speech means it is a non-starter for the next one. for example, it does not matter if they did not clash with your solvency in the 1nc! the warrants for it must be extended into the 2ac onwards or i'll rip up my case flow. i am not the judge for you if you neglect extensions and world building. if i cannot explain your solvency back to you at the end of the round, i'm not voting for it. plain and simple. call me interventionist, call me a presumption hack, i don't care.
i do not have very many specific thoughts on arguments since i find that debaters do not care what they are and will read what they wish. as long as you can resolve clash, implicate your warrants, and tell me how to write my ballot, i'll vote for whatever strategy.
i reserve the right to stop the round. do not make me have to stop the round. if you read the above and you go "wow this is my time to break out my "racism good" arguments," you need to get a better coach or read more books or something. i am not very tolerant to unabashed violent behavior and that intolerance will be reflected on my ballot.
for public forum: i'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge in this format. if you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, or you don't send a doc prior to your speech with evidence you are about to read, i will immediately vote for your opponents. if both of you happen to be cheaters, i will pretend i am a parent judge and vote based on who sounds the best and vibes. i might even vote for the team i just simply agree with the most. if you do not want to act like debaters, i will not treat you like one and this is now a speech event.
for ld: pretend you are in policy debate. i don't know what tricks are and i don't want to know. kant is a person, that's as much as i know. i will not exert much energy after speeches are over to go back and try to understand your arguments, have strong explanations if you do not want to pretend you are in policy. if i don't know how to judge your round, i'll roleplay as a parent.
i would never pref me above a 3. maybe not even above a 4. i am not a good judge.
no issue if you read cards from the gds wiki or those of my old teams. copy and pasting cards from identity affsthat are deeply personal with heart and soul poured into it and then deleting the initials off the citation is rude, be it mine or my kids'. i'm not one to be protective over cards, but ripping identify affirmatives without going through the effort to recut the cards is a odd and not giving credit more so.
i consider debate a rigorous academic activity, but we all need better vibes. just relax a bit. i promise if u try to find joyful things every weekend that are not dependent on the ballot (usually in the form of finding a good restaurant to doordash from or making a new friend), tournaments become infinitely more fun. league of legends is also very fun, so if you make league analogies or jokes during the round i will give u nothing less than a 29. unless u are making jokes about league being bad, then you will get nothing more than a 27. i'm a support/adc main and i'm a ~ lux/ashe ~ otp. champions i do not like: draven, darius, teemo, tristana, karma, qiyana, janna, kai'sa, blitzcrank, zilean, heimderdinger. pro players i like: meiko, keria, gumayusi, berserker, danny, vulcan, kanavi, jackeylove, corejj, philip. the better and more specific the jokes, the higher the speaks. 2010-style memes accepted but not preferred. as much as i would like, i cannot accept boosting bribes in exchange for the ballot. if all of ur taglines are league of legends metaphors/analogies i will give you a 30.
Let me keep it short. I have never been a coach nor a debater. English is my second language.
I view a debater as a presenter to convince a graduate committee or a business team on why his/her thesis or project should be endorsed or prevailed.
No matter what topics are, I do not take any consideration of their Pro/Con or Aff/Neg.
I judge by the following:
- Clarity of your points to support your position is important. This incudes both information clarity and speak clearly.
- Whenever you state numbers and facts, I take particular attention to whether you have references. The party provides more precise and comprehensive references, I score the party higher on the specific point.
- I value your own thinking and work, such as your analysis of the information you collected and connecting the dots. I especially value if you can frame them in a way that I can follow and understand.
- I judge how you counter the other party’s points. Avoiding or missing the points is a deduction.
Please feel free to ask me questions anytime.
I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!
I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. I got this. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics.
I will vote off of the flow. Please make sure to include any arguments you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. Your final focus should basically write my ballot. That being said, your attitude will affect your speaker points. Try to be nice to each other in cross-fire; get your point across, but don't scream.
Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!
current affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ; NSU School, FL
Past affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ (Assistant Director -- 2020 - 2022); Duchesne Academy, TX (Head Coach -- 2017 - 2020)
Other: Summit Debate Senior Staff (2018-Present); NSDA PF Topic Committee (2020-Present)
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs; please send text in the email.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order) .
Your choice if you want to paraphrase. However, I require you to cut cards for all evidence referenced in the round. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't cut cards then you might want to consider striking me. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics.
Main PF Paradigm:
1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense.
2.) Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary.
3.) Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
4.) I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything you have me 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).
5.) I will disclose and always allow accommodations for debaters.
Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).
Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do... Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not necessary, paraphrasing is bad, trigger warning when there are specific mentions of graphic depictions is good, and arguments with non-graphic depictions should have a content warning but should be debated. I will (usually) default competing interps.
*note -- if you read an excessive number of offs that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a very high threshold for your arguments -- so it probably won't work to your advantage to read offs like shoe theory or arguments that eliminate ground in debate.
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 go fast (please don't spread please), but will say clear if you go too fast and ask for a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.
Questions? Ask before the round.
cosby '21 fsu '25
put me on the email chain email@example.com
for those who care: qualled to toc senior year and broke at most tournaments I attended that year, placed at states as well
let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout
feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are
i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.
please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.
how do i decide who i vote for?
first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)
next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad
then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms
paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.
theory and ks are fine, just realize i wasn't really a prog debater in high school so take that as you will but I do know how to understand them. just please dont run trix, i hate them.
for theory i default to competing interps and no rvis
ks are fine, just know i prob wont be able to evaluate them as well compared to a lder or policy debater that actively ran them
most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible
Hello. I am a relatively new judge but I have a solid understanding of the Public Forum structure:
Tech > Truth
I prefer logical, analytical arguments.
Cards should be offered within a minute after request. Debates should not revolve around disproving evidence. Lastly, make sure to be on time. Rounds should be complete within the allotted time.
Another thing that will negatively affect speech would be debating out of speech time, and stealing prep. Please be prepared to time your own speeches. If you call out the other team for not abiding by Public Forum rules, I will take this into consideration.
Be sure to signpost as it is extremely hard to keep track of contentions, especially as a lay judge. Arguments must be extended in every speech.
Please do not dominate any crossfire round. If you ask for too many follow-up questions, speaks will be docked.
As always, no homophobia, racism, ableism, or sexism of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun!
Lay judge, first time judging. I was a dentist in India. I read up on the topic.
This is my first-time judging, so keep this in mind. I will not know any technical terms or concepts in debate. Please time yourselves and your opponents.
I will take notes and try to evaluate in an unbiased manner based on the arguments presented in the round.
Please speak slowly and make sure I can understand you.
Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.
Please keep in mind that I am a lay judge and I have no experience as a debater. Please speak clearly and don't use too many debate jargon.
Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:
1. Please speak SLOW and CLEAR. Because we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to hear what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear, you will end up losing a few points. (I'd rather have you not finish your speech than mumble rush through the entire thing.)
2. Please send me your case beforehand so I can follow along. This will give you an advantage during the tournament. Please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org .
3. Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and mute your mic.
4. Please time yourself. I will not warn you about your times unless they are very over. This will heavily impact your speaker points!
5. I don't give oral feedback usually so please wait until the ballots are posted for your feedback :)
6. I primarily focus on the structure and organization of the speeches. If I find it difficult to follow along and messy, I won't be able to favor your side! Please be organized!
7. I highly favor quantifiable evidence over others. So, use numbers!
Not Do's :
*** Do not yell into the microphone. If you speak too loud, it's going to sound like you are mumbling. If you speak too quietly, no one will hear you!! ***
*** any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behavior will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :) ***
Lastly, Have Fun:)
I did Speech and Debate during my time in High School - focusing on Public Forum Debate and briefly Congressional Debate. After high school, I attended Emory University studying Business Administration and Philosophy, Politics, and Law. I'm now working as a Business Consultant. I'm excited to be back in Speech and Debate as a judge.
In debates, I value three things: sound logic, respect, and communication. A quote was given to me by my HS history teacher, "It's 0% what you say, 100% what they hear." Keep that in mind.
Lincoln Douglas debate notes: The comments below are written with policy in mind. But the principles apply. I would suggest reading the whole thing but specifically the parts on qualification of evidence, education and accessibility. What I hear and record by hand on my flow sheet is the official transcript of the debate.
IMPORTANT: These are my first NDT/CEDA 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 your 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 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.
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. Overtime 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, usually the 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 call for card not talked about in rebuttals. 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.
I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.
Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.
Zoom Specific: UPENN people pls ignore :((
My campus's wifi is trash, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at email@example.com before the round actually starts. That's right -- add me to the email chains while you're at it! can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit I know the online experience is quite different. If you have any technical difficulties hearing the other side please do not be afraid to intervene in the round by saying "clear". I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!
My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand it to the best of my abilities
I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round)
If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points
If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20
If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)
Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content
I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me
Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so
I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary
2nd rebuttal should frontline offence
extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you
impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round
please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters
Speaks: Ignore for now, didn't see the rule book for UPENN yet
I know that even the smallest speak differences break your chances of even being in the top decile or even quartile, so I will be nice! If you make me laugh, you get an automatic +0.2 +0.1 for a pun attempt, +0.2 for a good pun attempt (my definition of good is skewed quite subjective) +0.2 for a NCT (Neo Culture Technology) reference - only the real ones know heh
MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD
Debated for two years in Public Forum at Half Hollow Hills High School East. I'm currently a senior at Binghamton University,
I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.
I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.
Weighing arguments is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.
Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).
include me in the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative.
There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:
1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.
2. Extend claim+warrant+impact
3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense
4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot
- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.
- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to
- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)
- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)
- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively
- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet
- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference
- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus
- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses
- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point
- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow
- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument.
- pre flow before the round! please don't delay
- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful
- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents
- Have fun!
Arguments must be clear, persuasive and understandable.
1. PLEASE SPEAK SLOWLY!!
2. Be polite in cross
5. Overall, just make smart arguments, while maintaining a good presentation. Please be respectful to your opponents.
6. If you add me to the email chain I will bump up your speaker points by 0.5, if you send cases I'll bump it by 1.
7. I'm a traditional parent judge.
my email is email@example.com
Hello, my name is Anya Saponja. I am a senior at The New School where I study both Philosophy and Politics. I have only judged a handful of times. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered in a slow meter.
Liz Scott She/Her
Debate parent judge who has now judged more rounds than I ever expected, I would always prefer to evaluate a round based upon strength of argument but I do flow and will use it to break a tie if the lay arguments are not decisive. Strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.
Preference for polite engagement, please be nice.
Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude.
I have judged a few PF debate tournaments in the past and so I do have some experience. My daughter has been debating for just over two years now at a competitive level and so I am familiar with the layout of the rounds in PF debate. I am comfortable with medium level speed, not too fast, and please speak clearly to ensure accurate delivery of the content. I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the strength of the contentions, you win on the basis of evidence & weighing in the final focus. I expect both teams to be respectful of each other. I have a background in Finance and my daughters attend Horace Mann and Bergen County Debate Club.
I am a parent of a debater and this is my first year judging. It would be helpful, if possible, for people to speak at a slower pace. In terms of my background, I work in the data analytics field having worked for large software enterprise companies and e-commerce outfits, mining data for insights that a broad range of an audience, from the uninformed to the well-informed, can digest and find actionable.
TLDR: Do whatever you do best, don't be afraid to try new things, and have fun. SPEAK CLEARLY no matter how quickly. Tell me what to write down. I need to know how your alternative works--how it works in the material world. I like the game of debate and value the ethos of good and fair debating. I like to reward topic research. Be a good person.
Who are you, Matt Stannard?
High school and college policy debater for 7-ish years. Full-time debate coach for 16 years coaching and judging mainly policy debate but also other formats. Law school graduate, full-time organizing consultant, part-time consultant-coach for several programs, summer institute instructor, frequent judge.
What arguments should or shouldn't we run?
My general assumptions are: Policy, critical, and procedural debate are of roughly equal value. I am not the state. Life is good, the topic is good, topic research is good. Debate should be challenging but fair. I won't vote for explicitly classist, racist, heteropatriarchal or sexist, ageist, ableist, or colonialist arguments. Those are ethical limits, but I will and often do vote for arguments I simply intellectually disagree with.
I don’t like to read a huge amount of evidence after debates, so the more you tell me during the debate, the less chance I’ll reconstruct arguments afterward in ways you might neither predict nor agree with.
What style and rates of delivery should we aim for?
Debate in the style and at the speed you're comfortable with. Please speak VERY CLEARLY and enunciate more than you would during a normal conversation. Please watch me occasionally to see if I'm getting it all down. I may sometimes ask for clarity.
What theoretical defaults should we be aware of?
I live and work at the intersection of grassroots social movements and policymaking. I really like (and need) solvency arguments for/against the kritik alternative that resemble solvency arguments for/against plans or counterplans--at least insofar as they engage with the material world where change is being claimed. Who, what, how, where. I am familiar with how movements and advocacy groups work so tell me how the alt works (or doesn't).
T and other procedurals aren't per se "genocide," but the political and social implications of particular interpretations may be reasons to prefer or reject those interpretations.
I won't kick a counterplan for you to test the status quo: if you don't want to be committed to it in the 2NR, say so when you kick it.
Counterplans, alternatives (or permutations) with solvency advocates can often tie-break close theory arguments or even get me to overcome a theoretical discomfort.
Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy. Neg, it should be clear how your advocacy is a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy.
I have started to selectively flow CX --not as part of the argument flow itself, but more to help me understand teams' argumentative commitments, definitions, distinctions, and what will be dispositive in the decision.
What preferences about in-round technology should we be aware of?
Prep time ends once the email is sent.
All tech should be set up pre-round; remediation of tech comes out of your prep.
File transfer time is grace time, but don't steal prep or I'll steal your speaker points.
What ethical views of debate should we be aware of?
Be chill to each other outside of speeches.
Please ask pre-round or via email if you have any specific questions that aren't addressed in the above.
Hello. I am a parent judge with one year of experience. This is my first year as a varsity judge.
Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand and digest your points and arguments. Speaking fast won't help you, and it will just frustrate me.
I am influenced by data and credible evidence supporting your positions. That being said, I'm skeptical if you toss around evidence without explaining how it's relevant, if I suspect you don't understand the evidence you're citing, or I think you're cherry-picking. I might ask to see evidence you cite, and actually read it.
I think sign-posting is great! Help me to choose your side.
I'm impressed by teams that debate well while being respectful of their opponents. I'm put off by rudeness and disrespect.
Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!
Hello, my name is Qibin
This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.
A few preferences:
1) Please don't rush/speak too fast
2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite
3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing
4) Please weigh in summary and final focus
5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.
Let's have a fun and educational round!
I am a parent judge who has spectated over 50 hours of PF training. I prefer quality over quantity as well as clarity over speed.
I am more likely to vote for arguments where you explain why X causes/prevents Y rather than just “Y happens on our side”. Please make all your arguments clear.
I focus more on your arguments rather than how well you speak, but this is only when I can clearly hear your arguments.
Hello debaters! I am a parent judge, and have judged a few PF tournaments.
Please speak at around 200-250 WPM.
So that I can follow along and make sure not to misunderstand your points, please send me a speech doc of your case before the round: firstname.lastname@example.org It would be much appreciated.
I pay attention to topics and clarity of speech. I also pay attention to the relevance of answers to cross questions.
Ability to quote facts from research and use properly in constructive speeches.
Quality of facts is more important than quantity.
Please extend your arguments through case , if you do not talk about it in summary I will not vote on it. Also extend your links and walk me through your argument.
Keep time of your own cases and your opponents , as well as prep time.
Email - email@example.com.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
I am a parent judge that is new to debate, aka lay judge which means I am not familiar with debate jargon.
Please do not spread, it does not matter how great your argument or evidence is if I cannot adequately understand you.
Signposting is very important for me to follow your arguments.
Lastly please be nice and courteous to each other.
I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past two years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.
I have a business and marketing background.
Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.
Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.
Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!
—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—
Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.
Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.
- I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
- If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
- if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My internal speaks scale:
- Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
- 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
- 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
- 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.
Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.
Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.
- I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.
Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!
Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!
- I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
- There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.
*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***
- norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
- gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
- norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate
K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!
- A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
- most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
- in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
- Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
- Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
- Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)
I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.
I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.
With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:
*I am a flow judge.
*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.
*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.
**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.
*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.
*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.
*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.
*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.
*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.
*I am a traditional judge/coach.
*In Public Forum:
**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution.
**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!
**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.
*In Congressional Debate
**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.
*In Big Question
**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!
**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.
I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.
9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, send me an email and I’ll be more than happy to get back to you on those as soon as I can!
if you need clarification on a ballot OR IF I JUDGED one of your rounds and you didn't recieve ANY FEEDBACK (esp with virtual tournaments it happens since I flow externally and copy-paste) please send an email ASAP to [ email@example.com ] - I archive my ballots routinely!
Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.
Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]
I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.
Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there
Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.
RFD FLOW - if you don’t see specific comments in your individual section (due to round pace), look for three asterisks/ three eights like: [ ***or .888], I’ll post the entire flow with [ *** or .888 ] at the end of key arguments per speech. Flow Criticism will be in parentheses +&&&, looking like this (comment)&&&
Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!
I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.
I live in the National Capital Area. I have some background as a debate judge. My son considers me a “lay judge”. I like logical arguments, but that doesn't mean it has to be a common argument (in fact, I like a variety of arguments because it spices up the debate).
For your debate, please do not “spread”; speak at a normal pace so I can understand. I listen to cross, but I do not vote what happens in cross unless you can’t defend case. Since I am listening to crossfire, it will play a role on how many speaks I will give you. I will give feedback and explain why I voted for a certain team after the round is finished. If I am judging an online debate tournament, I expect debaters to send me a speech doc for constructive AND rebuttal before you begin speaking to firstname.lastname@example.org because it helps me follow arguments easier. (use attachments, NO google docs please)
Time your opponents’ speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames. I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times or I will deduct speaks. I take notes. Good luck.
I'm a first time judge, and will try to make the best judgement as I can.
Please time yourselves and your opponents, while I'll also use a timer as backup.
My decision will be based on your statements, supporting facts and the logics to connect statements and facts. I'll make my decision in an unbiased manner solely based on the arguments presented in the round.
Please make sure you speak clearly so that the opponents and I myself can follow.
Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!
Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round.
I am parent judge and has judged so far 7 tournaments.
Speak clearly, no spreading please
Like well thought out arguments which are logical and make sense.
If I flip a coin and it lands on its side, you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
I did 3 years of PF and 2 years of BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.
I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.
@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.
Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.
I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks. If you still choose to include either, ensure that you can explain it clearly and that it is unquestionably relevant to the round.
Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.
Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.
Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.
Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?
I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I will drop your speaks.
Style + Misc.
If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.
I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.
If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.
Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at email@example.com