Tabroom.com

Tournament of Champions

2023 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Gold Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Greg Achten The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 10:37 AM EDT

Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am generally in favor of conditionality but there are instances where the negative takes it too far especially in LD. For example, 5 multiplank counterplans where all of the planks are individually conditional is not ok. In general anything more than 3 conditional arguments is pushing it for me.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances. I will not allow debaters to insert re-highlighting of evidence, it must be read aloud in the debate like any other piece of evidence.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Wyatt Alpert Oakwood School 4 rounds

Sarvesh Babu Thomas S. Wootton HS 4 rounds

Dylan Beach Richard Montgomery High School 2 rounds

Claire Beamer Palo Alto High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:34 AM PDT

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

Elliot Beamer Durham Academy 2 rounds

Ian Beier College Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character or on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. i forgot what eight was for.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Rahul Bindlish Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM EDT

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Jacob Bosley NSU University School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2024 at 3:43 AM EDT

Debate Coach at NSU University School

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

"Bosley" preferred, "Jacob" is fine, "Mr. Bosley" if you must for comfort.

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. My CX research is generally K-oriented and my PF research generally topic-oriented, but I'd like to believe I can grasp a wide range of debates.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly.

Flowing---I flow on a computer without much shorthand. I will have the document open, but use it for either reading evidence I am not familiar with or checking when I thought I caught an argument/tag and am confirming. If you are incomprehensible in the first place, I will not use the doc to fill-in.

Evidence---I read it during debates. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Intellectual Property" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer. Despite judging more than last year, I still don't have strong views on the most common issues, e.g. "courts only," "scope vs enforcement," "subsets," etc. Caselists and examples of specific ground lost/gained is always helpful.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. The two recent times I was asked to vote on conditionality bad/dispositionality-only good, I voted neg. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Alec Boulton North Broward Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM PDT

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

My name is Alec, you can call me that and not "judge" <3

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it!

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

If you think something is missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging. You can also ask me paradigm questions in-round, but I won't give answers that will advantage one team.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'll hard dock speaks.

-Traditional-

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, just offense (including implications and weighing).

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.

-Progressive-

I increasingly feel the need to specify that I have a bar for warranting in progressive debate: understand what you're saying. Don't assume I'll vote on your shortcuts. Nothing to be scared of, if you think you'd normally be fine you shouldn't need to change your debating. Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants.Think through what you're doing and try to explain your position to me as though the goal was to fully get me to understand your argument.

If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.

Speech by speech responses are fine, extensions start in summary.

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read. I'll judge those debates.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of why you are debating. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Trust yourself. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this (which you should!!!), here are some things you can do to up your speaks:

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

- be nice (or really just don't benot nice)

- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

- literally just don't give me a reason to drop your speaks. I'm not trying to give out 30s, but I like giving higher-end speaks when I see genuine debating and real attempts to engage with this activity :)

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Anna Brent-Levenstein Durham Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 9, 2023 at 9:48 AM EDT

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

Araceli Casasola Dulles High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Kun Chen Interlake HS 5 rounds

Sal Choudhury BASIS Chandler High School 4 rounds

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EDT

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Lynne Coyne Myers Park High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:18 AM EDT

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

9. Kritics are not my strength--and I have a real problem with running multiple ideologies simultaneously that have inherent contradictions. Policy questions are all WHO should do WHAT so link your critical stance to the resolution, an action engagement by the other team/individual, or a plan/assumption of the resolution. I am less likely to be persuaded by a debate infrastructure kritic than any other--many of these seem to aim to win a shiny trophy based upon hijacking the suffering of others rather than an authentic engagement with the specifics of any round.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Luke Cumbee Sioux Falls 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:22 AM CDT

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 4:03 AM CDT

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE:

i’m recovering from a concussion right now, so it would be very appreciated if you spoke slowly, basically treat me like a flay judge

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Ipsita Das Foothill High School 4 rounds

Theo Datta Winston Churchill High School 2 rounds

Elizabeth DeFanti Gallatin High Debate 4 rounds

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:16 PM EDT

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.

if you're looking for coaching or interested in national circuit debate from a school without a robust program, check out national debate club! please feel free to ask me/email me about it at the email above if you have any questions!

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.

if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike

in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.

3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.

4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.

6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.EDIT EDIT: IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME WHEN YOU FRONTLINE YOUR FOUR CONTENTIONS IN ONE MINUTE IN 2ND REBUTTAL. PLZ WARRANT. PLZ WIN YOUR OFFENSE.

9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.

12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.

** theory:

i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.

6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.

7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.i dislike you link you lose arguments, this constitutes "k debate done poorly" to me. clash is important and methods testing kritiks is what makes a good k debate. as the team who introduced the kritik you should defend the kritik and aim to win on the k sheet.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

5. i don't personally think pf speeches are long enough to do any justice to ontological claims about the genesis of existent societal structures (settler colonialism, anti-blackness, etc), but if you think you can prove me wrong go wild.

Zach Dyar Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:29 AM CDT

Lakeland Note: My camera is not working for an "unknown reason" on NSDA campus. I am in your round if I'm in the room, just assume I'm not going anywhere.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com . Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad norms in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Maverick Edwards Riverdale Country School 2 rounds

Mark Eggerts JR Masterman 3 rounds

Zayne El-Kaissi Taipei American School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 3:51 PM CDT

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

eric emerson The Kinkaid School 2 rounds

Joshua Enebo The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 4:36 AM CDT

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com (THIS IS A NEW DOMAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ALREADY HAD BLAKEDOCS SAVED) to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst somewhat prevelant practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to s ort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments. It has become more common these days to read WPM interpretations (i.e. cannot be more than 250 WPM). I think these are pretty stupid, to be entirely honest. It is not clear to me why disclosure doesn't solve or why being a more efficient speaker doesn't solve. Not saying I wouldn't vote for it in the right round, but its probably more an uphill battle in front of me than most.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. "Open source" with no highlights or tags, where teams put up walls of unformatted text and expect people to do precisely anything with it, is a huge pet peeve of mine and interps that punish teams that do this will be received favorably. I have decided the activity should probably start moving in the direction of disclosing rebuttal evidence as well, so do with that what you may. I will listen to reasons why that is bad, though I struggle to see the conceptual difference between a link turn and a case link from a disclosure perspective. I used to feel less strongly about disclosure than paraphrasing but now I feel about as strongly. We should be disclosing, and not doing so should absolutely cost you ballots.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Phil:In the 24-25 season there has been a massive increase in the number of circuit LD phil arguments. Note that my bar for garnering offense is probably higher than it normally is, mostly because I think these arguments as a matter of truth are probably not very useful in debate and almost never is solvency articulated. I have voted on them, probably will again, but I won't be thrilled and would prefer not to.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

Will Erard Westlake 4 rounds

Jianguo Fan Montgomery Blair 4 rounds

Aly Fiebrantz Awsare NSU University School 2 rounds

Eddie Fitzgerald Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:05 PM EDT

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Nathan Fleming The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:20 AM PDT

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Update for 2025 NDT

I’m coming back from my longest hiatus from debate ever. I’ve seen zero debates on the topic, and would appreciate a little extra explanation for the really technical stuff, acronyms, etc. My co-panelists will thank you for not making me spend time reading cards for comprehension.

This activity takes itself too seriously. Try not to be jerks to each other and don’t lose the plot.

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. You should probably read a plan.

Misc Notes

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Ritu Gautam South Forsyth High School 7 rounds

Eli Glickman College Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM EDT

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Lisa Goering Norman North High School 4 rounds

Manjusha Gorantla Chantilly HS 4 rounds

Rinki Goswami Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Deepak Goyal Monta Vista High School 4 rounds

Cecilia Granda-Scott Southlake Carroll 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:11 AM EDT

Sunvite 2025: *have very little topic knowledge about Somaliland take it easy on me*

Hello! I’m a third-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about parli!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid
Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.
I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round
Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.
My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.
If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Vietta Grinberg BergenTech HS 2 rounds

Mac Hays American Heritage Broward HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 3:22 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. I just started a YouTube channel with PF debate lectures (https://www.youtube.com/@machays) - check it out if you're curious to know how I think. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* The single most important thing to me is that you do your best to make sure that your opponents understand you when you are speaking. If your opponents do not understand you and you do not make a genuine effort to make sure that they can, I will drop you and I will tank your speaks. Don't risk it.

* If you are at the TSDA and you are fluent in English, do NOT a) read arguments faster than conversational pace or b) speak in a way that ignores English grammar structure when you are debating against a team for whom English is a foreign language. I will tank your speaks and, if it's really excessive, will feel fine just dropping you. Additionally, please offer your opponents a speech doc in addition to the above and answer any clarification questions in good faith.

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@alumni.brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Richard He Horace Mann School 4 rounds None

Ian Hill Winston Churchill High School 4 rounds

David Huston Jasper High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Aryan Jasani Southlake Carroll 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 10:56 AM EDT

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Southlake Carroll (TX) PF teams, Indiana University(IN), Greenhill (TX) LDers, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Plano West NS, Jasper SG

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Dhamodaran Jayabalan Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Zhihua Jiang Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

Joseph Jung BC Academy 4 rounds None

Sri K Princeton 4 rounds

Tyler Katz The Quarry Lane School 7 rounds

Farid Khairollahi Brentwood High School 7 rounds

Ben Kirsch Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 1:17 PM EDT

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | UMich '25

What follows says in a lot of words that I am a (relatively) normal flow judge. I still coach so you can assume I'll be read up on the topics, and for the most part, will know what's going on.

I'll evaluate anything so you should do whatever you do best in the round: I don't think its my job to tell you how to debate and there's no reason I'm entitled to only judge arguments I like. I'll be as tech over truth as I can possibly be.

Post-rounding is highly encouraged. I do a bad job organizing my feedback and talking about what debaters want to hear. If you think I made the wrong decision, tell me and explain why. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If after arguing about it further you conclude I made the wrong decision, you should punch me in the face.

Here are some preferences I have, designed to respond to the questions I get most often rather than give a comprehensive guide to how I'll evaluate the round:

(1) Speed is totally fine. What is not fine is spreading through a trillion blips. I will not flow off a speech doc. I can't read. Also, if you are spreading your tagline cannot be "thus," or anything that's one word. Read actual tags that express what the card says.

(2) I'll vote on anything (see above), but I do not want to listen to a theory round unless some actual, meaningfully bad stuff happens. If frivolous theory is a key part of your strategy I won't hold it against you but I'm just not the best judge for it. I reserve the right to award speaks how I please.

(3) I will happily vote on Ks. I am also very likely to be convinced by topicality arguments. People seem to use "Role of the Ballot," in ways I don't totally understand, and in general, many of the norms that are developing around Ks in this event are sort of bizarre. Arguments only require a claim, warrant, and an impact so if you can articulate what the K does / doesn't do you're doing fine. I promise you will not win a round for knowing jargon that your opponents don't, and vice versa (definitionally).

(4) Extensions of your arguments are not about checking the "extension" box. They're for actually explaining your argument & narrative so that I understand it. "They missed the eighth internal link of the argument so don't evaluate it," is not an argument that makes any sense. If the story of your argument is coming across, great, if not, you're probably in trouble.

(5) Evidence is mostly only relevant for factual, empirical claims. Warrants are far more important for everything else. Most debaters are smart; it's totally reasonable to think you're right and Johnson of CNN is wrong. Evidence quality matters a lot in those instances when evidence is important. Also, you should be reading author quals. "Johnson 16," saying something means absolutely nothing to me. "Johnson, professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan writing for Brookings," saying something does. I won't necessarily be checking all of your evidence for quals or ethics, but I might, and if I find that you're doing anything sketchy I will drop you and if you aren't citing quals I'll take note and evaluate accordingly. This stuff matters. Even if you get away with evidence nonsense now (I know I sometimes did), we're doing an academic activity here so we should be doing things the right way. Etc. Fill in the annoying boomer nonsense as you will.

Mark Kivimaki Seven Lakes High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:08 PM CDT

Conflicts: Edina HS, Isidore Newman, University of Minnesota, Kenwood SW.

umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com -- add me to the chain please!

TOC Update:

The most important information about preffing me is that I believe that debate is a communication activity. If you're unclear, including during card text, I'll clear you, and I won't flow what I can't understand. If your card highlighting is incoherent fragments of words rather than sentences, I will not pretend that your arguments make sense. If you choose to abandon line by line refutation with signposting while giving your speeches, expect that I will do the same in your RFD.

NDT/CEDA Paradigm:

I believe debate is best when debaters give speeches using a line-by-line format. The way that many speeches are given now diverges from my understanding of how to evaluate debates technically. When debating in front of me, you should read in a way that is comprehensible, including card text. You should be flowing the debate. Answering arguments that weren't read guarantees low speaker points, and you must take prep or CX time to ask clarification questions about what was read from the doc. You should answer arguments in the order presented and use numbers or other signposts whenever possible. Avoid long overviews and cloud clash. As much as I believe in judge flexibility, you need to help me to give the decision that you would be happy with.

Flowing: I will flow either on paper or on my laptop, depending on the vibes that day. I have dysgraphia, so if I am flowing on paper, please be sure to slow down on analytics and give pen time. I will follow along on docs during the 1AC and the 1NC to check for clipping, and after that I will not look at docs at any point in the debate unless instructed to read evidence. For me, reading docs does not substitute for clarity; if you are so unclear that I can not understand the words coming out of your mouth, that constitutes clipping. I'll clear you twice, and then I will vote against you for clipping. I will attempt to line up arguments on my flow but will flow top down if your speech organization renders that impossible.

My convictions about debate:

Debate matters. What we do here has significance.

Debate is a game into which debaters put hundreds of hours. Debate to win, and try your best to have fun while doing it. Judges have the privilege of watching high quality debates and are trusted with the responsibility of adjudicating them, so I will put as much effort into making my decision make sense as possible.

Evidence matters. You should read high quality evidence, and you should understand the evidence that you introduce into the debate. You should debate about the qualifications of your evidence. Your evidence should be highlighted into sentences that make arguments, not incoherent fragments of nouns and verbs.

You should read good arguments. The debaters I enjoy watching the most make good arguments that show that they have researched and thought about the topic in depth. Of course, my decision will be based on the technical execution of arguments in the round, but bad arguments generally only necessitate bad answers.

Style matters. Judges are never just making their decisions purely off of the flow. You should debate like you want to win.

Debaters should treat each other with a modicum of respect. Every judge and opponent is a human being. I don't believe in enforcing notions of politeness or respectability, but you shouldn't needlessly make the debate a hostile place. If you behave in a way that is immediately hazardous to the safety of other debaters or say that racism is good, you will lose.

Relevant information about preffing me:

The style of debate that I spend the most time thinking about is critiques. I pretty much only ever read Ks while doing college policy, and most of my coaching since then has either been coaching critiques or coaching policy debaters on how to answer them. Given my background, that's the style of debate where I am most comfortable adjudicating debates and offering high-quality feedback. Don't let that deter you from doing you though. I have voted on all styles and types of arguments and I care more about proficient execution than seeing debaters pander to me based on how I debated.

I definitely wouldn't consider myself an expert on the topic. Most of my research has been on the critical side of the topic. I have a surface level understanding of the popular affs and off-case positions, but I probably won't understand all your acronyms or topic norms. Tread lightly.

I'm not a huge fan of generic counterplans that could be read identically from topic to topic, and usually I think that if evenly debated, they would not establish an opportunity cost to the aff. I understand concepts in counterplan competition like mandates of the plan, intrinsicness, limited intrinsicness, etc. but I probably judge less than 10 debates a season that involve these concepts.

Topicality is a relevant concern and should be debated against policy affs. I tend to view topicality as a question of interpreting the words in the resolution, and I won't check out on reasonability just because a bunch of other teams also read this aff.

Debates with planless affirmatives are often challenging for me to evaluate when the negative goes for topicality. Procedural fairness can be an impact, but you need to convince me that is the case by doing more than spamming "fairness paradox". I am increasingly frustrated in debates where the 2AC or 1AR catastrophically fumbles an off-case position that is not topicality, and the 2NR is T anyways. Don't introduce off case positions if you can't credibly go for them. I struggle to understand how to evaluate topicality without comparing different models of debate.

LD-style phil/tricks arguments: I am conversant in these given my LD background. I would strongly prefer not to adjudicate a debate where you read these arguments without understanding what they actually say, and I will hold you to a high standard in explaining them. Ethical questions around consequentialism vs. deontology are obviously relevant to the topic, but if you don't understand how to execute these arguments, don't read them.

I will not adjudicate arguments about conduct outside of the round I am presently judging.

Parker Klyn Theodore Roosevelt High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:15 AM CDT

Parker Klyn, Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA)

Call me Parker, Mr. Klyn, or judge, whichever you're most comfortable with.

Roosevelt is looking for an assistant debate coach for 2025-2026. This would be a perfect role for a first-year out or college student based in the Midwest. You would only be obligated for one virtual practice ~2-2.5 hours/week as well as free trips to 5-6 bid tournaments in the region as well as TOC. Pay is ~$3200 for the year. Next year, we return two intact partnerships who qualified to Gold TOC in PF -- you'd be coaching the highest caliber of debater. If you are interested, email me AFTER TOC.

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

**********

Judging Philosophy

Tech over truth. The only arguments I won't vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad." I am happy to adjudicate the round the competitors want to have, whatever that looks like. Judges have a moral obligation to evaluate debates as fairly as possible and any intervention at all does a profound disservice to the hard work and preparation of the students in this wonderful activity.

Write my ballot for me (utilize clear judge instruction) in the final speeches. Offense/defense, the flow determines all, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I do not flow off the doc.

Outside of that, to cast a ballot in your favor, I need two things. First, I need complete extensions of whatever argument you're going for in each speech. Second, I need to be able to articulate the link story that resolves your offense, whatever that offense might look like. If one or both of those requirements are not met, I am comfortable holding the line even if those arguments are "won" on the flow.

LD Prefs:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 2

Tricks: 3

**********

About Me

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee. I coach the West Iowa District World Schools teams.

I lead labs at NDF/Summit Debate and Public Forum Boot Camp. I would love the opportunity to teach you at those camps.

I love judging. It makes me a better coach. You will always have my full attention in-round and I will do everything I possibly can to adjudicate the round fairly and completely. Ask as many questions before/after the round as you like.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too. Debate has allowed an awkward kid like me who grew up in Grinnell, IA (population: 9,000) to flourish as an educator and coach. I'm an open book: if there's anything I can do to help you learn, just ask. I value the educational aspect of debate far beyond any competitive result. If you want to read some of my opinions/takes on debate click here.

Ryan Kodura Flower Mound High School 4 rounds

Preeti Kumar Ravenwood High School 4 rounds

Edward Kunkle La Salle College Preparatory 4 rounds

Sophia Lam Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Kurtis Lee Ridge High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

PF UPDATE - PRINCETON

Please treat me like a flay judge. If you try to run theory or a K the bar is set VERY high. If you attempt to spread you will be "cleared" if your clarity is poor. Therefore, please just treat me like a flay judge to make it easier on all of us!

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the email chain

Send all cards before the speech, stop killing time in the round on asking for individual cards please.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

David Levin St. Luke's School 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-Be decent to one another

-Be ready to debate at the start time, including an email chain/speechdrop

-(Online) - sound check before round, and check to make sure we're all ready before you start your speech

----------

LD:

~90% of my judging has been for Policy and PF.

-I like critical arguments, and policy arguments a close second.

-Phil is pretty new to me - I can't say I fully get it yet, but if it's your bread-and-butter strat, run with it. You'll benefit from slowing down and over-explaining.

-I'm not a fan of tricks, but it's your debate, not mine! I'll do my best to keep up, but I can't vote for an argument I don't understand by the end of the round.

-I've found LD to be more interpersonally prickly/uncomfortable than team debates. Lower the temperature. Be nice. Have some fun.

-Speed is fine but slow down for the start of your speeches, tags, and signposting between arguments. Neither of us want me to miss what you're saying, so help me help you. Once you're into the internals of the card, I am much more permissive.

-If you're going to spread analytics, it is in your best interest to send them in the doc. I won't consciously punish you if you don't, but I may inadvertently punish you if I miss a key warrant because you zipped through it.

-I will never "eval" after any speech besides the 2AR, save for clipping or safety concerns.

-Quality > Quantity for off-case! More than 4-off runs the risk of my flow becoming disorganized. While I am sympathetic to Condo Bad as an argument, I would strongly prefer not having to decide rounds on it.

-I prefer that you don't read frivolous theory arguments. Disclosure theory is not frivolous.

-Speaker Points:

30: You were an astounding speaker and strategist, while demonstrating tact, grace, and good humor through your presence in the round. Your performance represented debate at its best.

29.5-29.9: You sincerely impressed me. You spoke well, and executed your strategy nearly flawlessly with no stone left unturned. I will tell my own students about your performance.

29.1-29.4: Very strong performance; What I'd expect of a 5-1 or 6-0 debater.

28.7-29: Well done; What I'd expect of a 4-2 debater.

28.4-28.6: Default; I'd generally expect you to go 3-3, give or take.

27-28.3: Varying degrees of gaps to fill - keep pushing!

<27: Something happened which warrants a conversation/intervention with your coach

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-Clash > Ground > Limits > Predictability

-"Fairness" and "Education" are relatively squishy terms, and I've enjoyed rounds where those terms becomes objects of the debate.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good (i.e. well-organized) T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. 4-off is my general threshold for keeping a good flow these days - the cleaner I flow the more effectively i can adjudicate.

-If it happens, so be it, but I'd rather not decide debates on condo.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean it's a good argument, just a happy nostalgia trigger for me)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

James Lewis University School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 7, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed homeand played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

WSD (Written for Delores Taylor 2024):

I've coached for our district's World Schools team for five of the last seven years. (We won and made finals the two years I stepped away, so make of that what you will. :) I love WSD, it's my favorite event! Even though I spend most of the year coaching LD, I work hard to approach WSD as an event sui generis and don't apply norms of LD to the activity. What does that mean?

I prioritize looking at the round in a holistic fashion thinking about how successful both teams are at advancing and supporting a narrative throughout a round. I'm not focused on "drops" and the "flow" as much as I am on who is doing the better overall job of debating. Don't try to go for every argument in a round if it's not strategically important.
One of the beauties of WSD (especially impromptu rounds) is that students are not expected to "card" every argument. While evidence is useful, especially in terms of examples and historical precedent, it is just as important for students to provide logical support for their arguments. Responding to logical arguments with "you don't have a card!" won't fly in a WSD round.
Presentation/Style is supposed to be a part of the WSD experience. I look for students to utilize persuasion, rhetoric and speaking ability to help advance their arguments. I coach my students to minimize jargon and look for ways to craft eloquent statements that will convince judges of their position. In my mind, WSD should be a much-needed oasis in the desert of spreading. (See, rhetoric! Try it!!)

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

Frank Li North Allegheny 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 14, 2023 at 2:00 PM EDT

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

Shanjun Li Montgomery Blair 3 rounds

Sarah Lim Interlake HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 1:33 AM PDT

Please put me on the chain: debate@sarahlim.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com (high school), debatedocs@googlegroups.com (college)

Interlake '14, Northwestern '18, coaching for both; she/her

More truth > tech than most judges.
I am a bit of a curmudgeon and above all persuaded by honorable conduct and argumentative rigor. Do not waste our time with stupid arguments, backfile slop, or intellectual cowardice—and my threshold for stupid is probably lower than yours. Everyone should debate to elevate the standard of this activity.
I am specifically unfavorable for low-effort process CPs, "fiat causes heart attacks," "textual competition means we rearrange the words," and "plantext in a vacuum". I mention these specifically because they appear to be in vogue right now.

Basic physics

Presumption goes to the status quo, then the aff.
I will judge kick the counterplan/fiated counteradvocacy if and only if the 2NR instructs me to do so, and the 2AR drops this argument. Just saying some variation of “the 2NR’s job is to decide what to go for” is usually enough.

Administrative

I will "clear" your analytics to a reasonable extent, but I will not vote on arguments I cannot flow, andI will not backflow from the doc to compensate for your lack of clarity. Please slow down from your top speed, especially on topicality/theory/CP texts, and especially if you're debating online. I flow on paper by listening to the speech, not by following along in the doc.
I detest intimidation, rudeness, or mean-spirited snark regardless of your argument content. Remaining good-natured and relaxed is fantastic for ethos. This doesn't mean you can't point out cringe when cringe happens, but deliberately trying to make your opponents uncomfortable actually just makes you lose credibility.
I will not use my ballot to adjudicate non-falsifiable events that occurred outside the round. For in-round behavioral accusations that are debated out (rather than stopping the round), I reserve the right to evaluate these arguments using something other than offense-defense.
If you give your final rebuttal without a computer I will give significantly higher speaker points. This is very important because I tend to give lower points than most people who inflated in the 2020's.
I can’t believe this has to be said: please explicitly kick offcase positions you are not extending in the block/2NR. If you do not do this, the aff can leverage this on conditionality, or at the very least as a reason the world of the 2NR is incoherent.
I attempt to line up arguments on my flow, rather than simply flowing straight down. Ideally these orderings will coincide, but oftentimes they do not, e.g. if you jump around, skip arguments, only flow off the doc, or otherwise mess up the numbering. When misalignments occur, I waste time trying to figure out where to flow you, and miss more of your arguments. Therefore, number/skip around at your own peril.
- Given the precarity of numbering schemes, I find it much easier to flow debaters who label the arguments they are answering, either explicitly ("2AC 4 is 'alt fails'") or via embedded clash ("1NC 4: yes China war")
Rehighlightings must be read out loud. I will not evaluate anything “inserted” into the debate unless it is talked about in the speech.

Affirmatives

Claiming durable fiat is a prerogative, but not an obligation, of the affirmative.
I believe the aff gets to make permutations by default, regardless of framework or the nature of the 1AC advocacy. I am open to debates about what kinds of permutations are theoretically legitimate depending on the context, e.g. intrinsicness tests, competing methods, etc.
Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies; as a result, they are not offense and do not require net benefits. All permutation texts must be read (they cannot simply be inserted in the doc).

Disadvantages and internal NBs

I believe that DAs and internal net benefits should be opportunity costs to the plan, and that this produces the fairest and most educational form of debate. Pet peeve: It’s not an “intrinsic perm”, it’s an “intrinsicness perm”, because it tests whether the neg’s offense is intrinsic to the plan. It also makes no sense to say “intrinsicness is a voting issue”, if you wanted to defend the negative should get non-intrinsic offense, the voting issue would be ”intrinsicness perms are illegitimate.”
Most agenda politics 1NCs are incomplete arguments, and more affirmative teams should leverage the holes. “Plan popular” is link defense, not offense. “Winners win” can be offense. However, it is also a label that gets slapped onto a litany of different internal links. Some (e.g. Singer 9) require the plan be unpopular to count as a win. Others (e.g. Hirsch 13, Waldman 20) don’t really care about the direction of the link. I genuinely can’t tell what Kane 21 wants.

Counterplans

Only functional competition matters. Textual competition is an utterly inane argument, peak debate-brained, because that is not how words work in mainstream American English. Easy litmus test: if the plan says “do X” and the 2NR goes for DA/case, you are functionally going for “CP: don’t do X” which obviously represents an opportunity cost but would not be textually competitive.
- One plausible exception in favor of textual competition: topic-specific word PICs of terms of art that would be textually but not functionally competitive, with valid reasons why I should prefer certain language in the context of the aff's policymaking
- I default to evaluating competition using the final/cumulative result of a perm. For example, if the plan increases X by $10 and the CP decreases X by $50, "perm do both" would be a net decrease of $40. If you want me to evaluate otherwise, convince me why that's good.
I am an unfavorable judge for most CPs that rely on banal definitions of "should = immediate and certain". This includes offsets, sunsets, recommendations, or your exciting new process strategy that somehow still reads Summers 94 in the 2NC. Assuming competent execution by both teams, the affirmative should almost always win my ballot. I only find myself voting for these CPs due to major aff execution errors, not because I find them in any way compelling.
I am extremely persuaded by analytic common-sense solvency deficits to absurd advantage CPs.
Solvency deficits must be impacted and quantified. Corollary: you don’t need to tell me to use “sufficiency framing,” which is a three-steps-of-telephone mangling of the observation that CPs are tests of the plan’s necessity. This is like going to a DA and saying “evaluate this page using impact framing: if the negative impact outweighs the affirmative’s offense, vote negative.”

Kritiks

I am bad for K's that rely on instrumentally calling everything a microaggression and saying fiat is bad just to win rounds. I am better for K debaters who believe their arguments to be true, have well-researched/innovative/nuanced arguments, and debate technically without blocks.
Discourse obviously shapes reality,even in a 100% consequentialist vanilla policy debate. To say otherwise borders on farce. "Discourse shapes reality" does not mean you can point to a chair, say "that's not a chair," and the chair will disappear. It does mean you can point to an object and determine it is furniture suitable for sitting on; whether it is actually used as a chair, table, ottoman, stool, etc. is entirely a product of norms, expectations, and language.
Please be cognizant of your subject position as it relates to your arguments, and debate with the corresponding self-awareness.
K vs. K rounds should maximize clash; these can be some of the most interesting positions to write.
No one has ever explained to me how "frame subtraction" is different from a PIK.
I think critical education is valuable and teams are unlikely to convince me otherwise. That being said, to quote Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, "I am interested in learning some things, but I am not interested in deciphering incoherent nonsense. I am not a nihilist, and I think 'things' are generally better than 'not things.' Ontology critiques are very interesting, for example, when articulated effectively. If you want to read the script of Dude, Where's My Car and claim it was an ontological critique, I don't think you want me to judge you. I guess you could win, but I think I hate you."

Topicality

“Plantext in a vacuum” is incredibly silly because it implies I should reinterpret the words in the plan differently across different parts of the debate, which makes absolutely no sense as either a procedural locus or model of standard American English communication.
In order of persuasiveness: education > clash > procedural fairness. Over time, procedural fairness has become a harder sell for me. There are so many enormous alt causes to competitive equity/declining participation, most of which are not externally-visible to opponents or judges.
I am unlikely to reject a team solely for being extra-topical.
I evaluate “we meet” as a yes/no question. However, there are straightforward W/Ms and oblique W/Ms. Affirmatives depending on the latter would be advised to extend other offense in the 1AR. (Litmus test: suppose you were reading the negative’s interpretation as your own counter-interpretation. If the 2AC would include an additional line for “we meet our C/I” because it’s not blatantly obvious, then it’s an oblique W/M.)

Theory

I will not vote on theory unless I flowed it while listening to your speech in real-time without reading the doc. Many people are insecure about their debate reputation and will vote on something they missed because a highly-ranked team made a fuss about it. I am not one of these people; if I end up sitting because I was the only one who missed a blip, so be it! You are welcome to not pref me. Online debaters especially, adjust accordingly.
Please answer theory on the correct flows. These flow(s) should be present in the roadmap even if you are only answering theory and/or kicking (see above). Example: If the 2AC reads conditionality bad on the States CP and you answer it halfway through your K 2NC, whose roadmap did not include the states CP, that is not the correct flow.
"C/I: we get what we did" is so annoying. I guess I'll vote for it, but like, why not just say conditionality is good??

Miscellany

I think that teams often view conditionality as a blank check to make contradictory arguments, as long as they occur on different flows. I do not have substantive theoretical objections to this (assuming the neg is winning conditionality good, of course). However, debate is partly a persuasive activity, and when I hear a negative block consisting of diametrically opposed positions, I find it undermines the persuasiveness of the speech on both sides of the issue and becomes susceptible to 1AR strategic exploitation.

Brian Loo Sidwell 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 8:22 AM EDT

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Side note for the April PF Topic: I have a masters degree in environmental engineering, take a personal interest in energy and environmental policy, and teach a class on environmental literature, so I'll still aim to be tech over truth out of principle but I'll probably also have a lower tolerance than usual for bad cards and empirically dubious claims about nuclear energy.

Side note for the TOC:Please also see the Policy section of my paradigm below.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 3 rounds

Jillian Marty Riverdale Country School 2 rounds

Ethan Massa Durham Academy 7 rounds

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

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

General:

I won't evaluate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackie Massey VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 2 rounds

Stormee Massey VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:10 PM EDT

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

ALSO-if you are second rebuttal speaker, I expect frontlining.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

Nupur Mehrotra Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School 4 rounds

Noah Mengisteab Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM EDT

Background: He/Him; 3L at NYU Law; previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC) 2024 - Present.

*Tarheel States Notice*:You should consider striking me if you don't cut accurate cards or won't use an email chain. It won't be an auto-loss, but I will consider arguments by opponents if they call out the lack of formatted evidence. The rest of my paradigm will be the same "technical" paradigm.

Email Chains:Please addnmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards. NSDA rules state it's definitive to highlight or mark for identification evidence read, and you need to highlight/mark for paraphrasing (p. 37-38)

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.
Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.
Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.
Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).
New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary. 2nd final can respond to 1st final weighing if it's new.
Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.
Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I'm open to the following arguments at any varsity / national circuit tournaments (please not in JV or Novice):

Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.
Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think theory with legitimate violation stories is good, open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. However, if your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose in good faith (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine, but if it's frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck, shoe theory), I am more likely to intervene.
Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Cut card evidence ethics and email chain apply.

I've judged LD only a handful of times, but debate is debate. You probably shouldn't go full circuit style, but you certainly don't need to go full-on traditional mode either. However, in either debate style, I will still care about the line-by-line, so consistently respond to defense from prior speeches, crystalize offense, and consistently weigh your link or impact stories.

LARP/T/Theory>Trad > K/Nontopical Ks/Non-T AFFs > Phil/Tricks

More specifics if helpful:

Policy - Advs and DAs are great and what I most prefer. Any Plans/CPs should be specific with their solvency advocate. Very open to spec if any argument is too vague. I think the 2nr is more about crystalizing existing offense than dumping new evidence / impact scenarios, but new answers to 1ar defense make sense. Condo is fine but if it gets too silly then I'm open to hearing the shell.

T - Need to make sure there's good interp weighing/comparison here.

Theory - see PF section above. I am open to judging other interns, too, but the less serious the violation/more friv, the more likely I am to intervene.

Non-T/Planless AFFs - Again, open to judging it, have voted on it before in PF, but there's a risk of losing me, especially in K v K debates.

K - IR, Cap, Securitization, Afropess, Killjoy are fine, but any high theory lit will need significant explanation. Most important is contextualizing your offense while extending -- can't just ignore defense by extending through ink.

Tricks - Strike

Phil - Judged 3 phil rounds in PF, so overall not familiar with most lit; again run at your own risk or be ready to explain it well

Questions? Ask before the round.

Cliff Michel The Bronx High School Of Science 7 rounds

Jeffrey Miller Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Martin Miller Princeton 3 rounds

Tim Missell Lambert High School 7 rounds

Siddharth Mittal North Allegheny 3 rounds

Robin Monteith The Overlake School 7 rounds

Dylan Morgan Theodore Roosevelt High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 4:43 PM CDT

I did primarily PF for 4 years and have coached PF and some Extemp at Theodore Roosevelt since 2019. I'm an average flow judge on and off the national circuit.

Email chain: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, love the game

I’m not going to answer any questions before the round unless both teams are present. Ask me anything you'd like afterward.

Do not wait for me, start setting up asap

Do not go over time or prep steal. Call your opponents out if they do this. I don't time, keep track of each other.

I don't like flex prep or talking to your partner in cross, or speeches. Cross is binding, and defense is never sticky.

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If the team that wins the framing or weighing extends and wins their argument, they win. If neither framework nor weighing occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the path of least resistance to their impact. I default to scope. Tell me in a speech what I should do instead if you want.

I would prefer it if you told me how I should evaluate the round or write my ballot, and WHY. Judge instruction is a lost art.

Framework: I don't really have a ton of experience with anything more advanced than util, SV, etc. just explain it to me and why I should prefer it.

Speed: I don't really want to follow along in a doc, but I will if that's the type of debate both teams want to have. I like flowing faster rounds, but honestly, I'm not the best flower for speed. I can keep up ok, probably about 225-240 wpm, that's clear. I flow on paper, but I'm moving to my computer to flow faster rounds. I hate blippy and frantic speed; make it intentional and remain clear. I will clear you twice, but do not clear the other team.

Slow down on tags, stats, analytics, if your arguments are less common, and a bit in the back half.

Evidence: only read cards. If it is misrepresented, I'll strike it from the flow, but you must tell me in a speech to look at it and why. I don’t like having to look at evidence, but I will if it’s essential for my decision. I’d strongly prefer that you resolve the evidence debates in speeches. I despise teams that lie about evidence.

General Preferences of Arguments:

You need to fully (u + l + il + impact) extend your arguments. Not extending your argument means I cannot vote for it, even if your opponents do not call it out.

Quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense, or you will lose)

Resolve clash, and you will win.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. The best 2nd rebuttals frontline and collapse on what they're going for, frontline turns, and maybe weigh. If you try to frontline your whole case, I won't catch all the frontlines, and you'll probably undercover their case. If you can do it well without causing those problems, go for it.

Anything in final focus needs to be in summary, no new weighing mechanisms in final focus, only expansion of ones from summary, responses to the opponent's weighing, and new meta weighing is ok.

I love logical warranting, smart analytics, knowing your evidence, and real-world knowledge. It should be obvious that this is what every judge wants, but PFers increasingly lack this and rely on evidence/arguments from the wiki without doing their own work cutting cards or following the news :(

You do not need a card for everything. If you use “they have no evidence” as a response against a smart analytic using background and real-world knowledge, I will scoff.

You need consistent responses starting in rebuttal; entirely new arguments that need evidence to be true, starting in summary, is not a good strategy. This is why you can't spread yourself thin in 2nd rebuttal, especially.

WEIGHING AND COMPARISON OF ARGS CAN START IN 1ST CROSS

Progressive Arguments

If I have to, I’ll listen to and vote on anything within reason.

I'm familiar with most theory arguments, but honestly, I don't really like them. I don't want to listen to frivolous theory. I get a bit lost with the jargon and specifics on my flow sometimes. I do my best not to be biased, but I despise bad evidence ethics and improper disclosure. I'm going to give you very low speaks and have a low threshold for responses to frivolous shells like Comic Sans.

I prefer K’s to theory, but I'm unfamiliar with nearly all the specific literature, so just simplify it for me. I understand the basic structure and common PF Ks. That being said, I prefer substance every time.

Slow down and explain everything more for progressive debates. I require sending speech docs to everyone. Do not run progressive arguments against clearly inexperienced debaters in front of me. If you haven't run into prog arguments before, don't just complain about how you don't know how to respond.

PF has very short speech times, so I will be a particularly bad judge if there are a lot of offs and you go fast.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. Just do what I said above.

Eva Motolinia The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:39 AM CDT

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

Sully Mrkva North Broward Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 6:04 AM EDT

Sully Mrkva

“There is a house. One enters it blind and comes out seeing. What is it?” --- Tell me the answer.

add me to the email chain: Manlybros11@gmail.com

Brentwood High '22 / VT '26: Debated for Four Years - Won TOC, Auto-Qualed to TOC 2x and Nats 1x. I'm now the assistant director for the Debate Drills Club Team and NSD PF camps.

TLDR: Tech>Truth that will vote on anything that is not _ist.

I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be a chungus.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-General-

It’s MY job to adapt to you - if there’s anything you need before round to help make it more accessible or have any questions - email me or ask me before round.
Don’t be a jerk - Debate Rounds can get very heated - try to maintain your composure and “pretend to be sincere.” ALSO - if you are absolutely COOKING a team - don’t add fuel to the fire - treat a novice team with the same respect that you would give the #1 team ranked in the nation, if you don’t, you’re in for a low speaks win.
Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD.
Feel free to postround (time permitting ofc). For newer debaters and anyone who wants help - ask me if there’s something better you could have done on argument x during the round to win my ballot - I will give my best critiques as possible to improve your skill into the future (I always loved judges who did this for me).
Second Rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined - i.e. if you are going for a contention with 3 pieces of defense and a turn on it - you must frontline all of that in one way or another for me to evaluate it in the back half. (during tech rounds I used to frontline entire case and then go vroom vroom on their case - I think this is very strategic and if you do it well - I’ll give a speaks boost)
No Sticky Defense. Even if it is conceded, extend it.

-Substance-

Extend Warrants. For offense you are going for - whether that be a turn, DA, case argument, etc. I need a warranted extension that isn’t some blippy 5 second extension - if it's FULLY conceded, my threshold for this is a bit lower.
Summary -> FF mirror. Anything in FF has to be in summary. Case arguments, defense, offense, weighing all need to be explained and extended in summary for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Exception to this rule is if a team reads new weighing in 2nd summary, you can respond to that in 1st FF. Structure of speeches can be different between summ and ff - just no different content. 2nd FF cheese will not work on me.
Frontlining. I love when teams frontline entire case in 2nd rebuttal - that is, if they do it well, if you can’t reach the efficiency level and blip storm supreme through the first 1:30 of rebuttal, it’s not gonna bode well for you on the flow. More broadly, frontlines need to be directly interactive with the argument you are responding to, give me reasons why to break the clash, postdates, warrant comparison, etc - or it’s gonna make the debate wayyyyyyyyy closer than it needs to be. Lastly, cross-applying conceded frontlines from different parts of the flow to another in back-half speeches is perfectly fine, the flow is a toolbox, not a map.
Rebuttal Responses. You can go as fast as you want, as long as there is a warrant that I can pinpoint and explain back to myself during my decision. Do not spam DA’s that are masked as turns that aren’t actually responsive to the link, you can give an all offense rebuttal - but make sure you are interacting with your opponent on the link level. Respond to impacts - one of weakest parts of current circuit tech debate is teams focusing too hard on link-level responses and flat out dropping their opps’ impact scenarios in even the most high-level rounds. Do this in rounds I judge you and adopt this in future ones - trust me, it’ll make a world of difference.

-Weighing-

Carded weighing is GASSSS.

Make your weighing comparative. Just asserting that your argument is empirically proven or has a higher magnitude is the bare minimum and is the most basic way to grab a ballot. To be confident that you won mine, prove why your opponents don’t meet the weighing threshold, but you do - I.E your argument happened empirically, but their link was historically disproven. Most importantly, compare link-ins - just explaining why your argument link-ins to their impact doesn’t give you offense, it at best non-uniques their scenario - explain why you have a better link into their impact to generate round-winning weighing. META WEIGH - if two teams are giving different weighing mechanisms without any comparison, it’s gonna force me to intervene, prob over mag, visa versa, etc. makes the round ez for me to evaluate and by extension ez-ier for you to W.
Frontline yours and Respond to theirs. Don’t shuffle deck chairs on the titanic. If your opponents respond to your weighing, you need to frontline it in the proceeding speech and extend that frontline or otherwise you won’t have access to that weighing. This goes both ways - respond to your opponents weighing, or theirs is conceded. A really good “weigh” to win my ballot is to handle weighing at the top of your speech - it’s the most important aspect of the flow and crystalizes the round for tech judges.
Have Fun with it. Don’t be afraid to give strategic and smart link-ins, don’t stick to magnitude, probability, scope, etc. Link-ins and short circuits at both the impact and link level are by far the most effective forms of weighing. I like extinction outweighs or extinction comes first weighing - speaker boost incoming if you do this.
Fake Weighing. Strength of link weighing, Clarity of impact, Clarity of link is BS and not actual weighing - just analysis of the level of ink on your case that’ll be obvious when I look down on my flow. This weighing isn’t convincing - don’t waste your time reading it.

-Theory / Prog-

I’ll vote on theory - Default RVIS and reasonability. I didn’t read a single progressive argument in my debate career but had my fair share of rounds hitting Ks, theory, tricks, etc. So I know how to evaluate. BUTTTTT - if you are clearly reading theory to get an easy W against a new team expect your speaks tanked and if you are reading some friv stuff that is obviously just a 7-eleven quality shell I will have an extremely high bar for you throughout the round.
I’ll vote on Ks. I can evaluate Pf level K debate and vote correctly. I’ll evaluate everything directly off the flow and be completely tabula rosa - which I believe is of utmost importance ESPECIALLY in prog/K rounds.
I Like substance more. I’ve always been a substance guy - so don’t read prog just because you have a tech judge. If this is your topic strat, there is an actual violation, etc. RUN IT and I’m all ears.

-Speaks-

Be Chill, Be fluent, easy to follow, and strategically smart - that’s my recipe for good speaks.
Some of my favorite debaters are Sri Chilukuri, Anoosh Kumar, Anuraag Routray, and Max Wu - I vibe with these debaters’ style - this is meant to give you a gauge on what I like.
Be assertive in cross - don’t let your opponents walk over you and don’t be afraid to call them out if they are ranting and giving a mini rebuttal.

-Fun Stuff-

If you made it all the way down here - thank you!

Matthew Norman NSU University School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 4:39 AM EDT

I did 4 years of PF at Cypress Bay in Weston, Florida (2016-2020). I'm currently a senior at duke.

My paradigm is just random notes and bullets because I'm a pretty boring and receptive judge. Generally flow, emphasis on weighing, implicating, offense. I'll evaluate anything, just explain it. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.

-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you

-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does. Respond to your opps weighing if you're cool.

-Cross is for you, does not impact I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc)

-Don't read responses you won't implicate/explain/understand, makes the whole debate better

-please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn

-3 min summary is cool and all but collapse

-Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

-Please have fun. Like actual fun and not like fun in pursuit of a W.

-I normally vote for the best singular piece of offense in the round. (collapse please)

-not paradigmatically/morally against them at all, but reading a K (or theory) in front of me is probably not the best idea unless you REALLY take the time to explain everything. I’m out of practice and never totally learned it all to begin with

If you have any other questions feel free to email me matthewnorman2002@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sepul.fabiola@gmail.com

At the end of the day, debate is up to the debaters. Do what you enjoy/are best at and I'll do my best to be receptive and evaluate it all fairly.

TLDR:

Wired: Collapse, weigh, signpost, tom brady slander, being nice, talking slow

Tired: being mean, friv theory, partial quads (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

Alon Nozic BergenTech HS 2 rounds

Keri Oldham The Chapin School 4 rounds

My Kim Ong Los Altos High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:40 AM PDT

Biography:

I did ~~too much of~~PF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.

Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth

I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.

Growing List of Pet Peeves:

Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
Defense is not sticky.
Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
I make faces, I'm sorry.
In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
Please be kind to your opponents.
Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Young Park Leland High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 2:30 PM PDT

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Drew Peterson Durham Academy 7 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 1:09 PM CDT

-- Paradigm

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in the most recent and academically legitimate topical research of any kind, as opposed to theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

Ke Ren Poolesville High School 4 rounds

Irshad Reza Husain Southlake Carroll 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 10:20 AM EDT

Qualifications

I cleared at the NDT (2023), ADA (2024), & CEDA (2025) in college as the 17th seed. I also got 1st seed at the 1st Earthseed tournament (2025) and 29th seed at the NDT (2025) too. I have previously cleared at Northwestern, Wayne, Wake, Georgetown, & Texas at various points during my college career. Anyways, I'd say I was an above average Debater and I can flow very well I promise I'm a fast typer. I was double 2's when I broke at the 77th NDT as part of Wayne State HR on Legal Personhood (AI, Animals, Nature). I Debated Nuclear Weapons as Wayne State MR, & I Debated Climate Change as Binghamton KR. I coached a high school team that won the Detroit UDL 3 years back to back and broke at NAUDL in 2023 the same weekend I was at the NDT. The team also earned a ToC bid and got 1st seed at the ToC Digital Series 3 in 2025. I am familiar with every single norm and argument in the community. I am majoring in both computer engineering and sociology so I'm eclectic.

Tech>Truth

Disclaimer: I have no personal biases against anyone in the community no matter what issues outside of the round may exist. You can feel how you want. I am not going to vote on anything except who won. For me personally, I am too committed to the technical nature of Debate to think otherwise. You can think whatever you want about me, but just know that I am strongly ideological and I am ideological above everything and my core ideological take about Debate is that I should vote for who wins the Debate because anything else is just bad practice. If you make an argument about using the ballot in a certain way that's fine, I'm just saying that you have to win that I should do that. I will vote only on the arguments presented in round with no predisposition. I mean this to say that I promise that nothing else within community interactions will feed into or alter my ballot (I guess unless it's brought up and I am required to evaluate it), but otherwise there will be nothing else subconsciously influencing my decision. I promise that I will adjudicate the Debate solely based on what is in the 2AR & 2NR.

How I Write My Ballot

My RFD will comprehensively cover each and every single argument you extend into the 2NR and 2AR in the context of the other team's arguments. I will not insert my own biases, but instead solely speak to how the other team was able to couch your offense. I will say that you should err slightly on the side of more explanation rather than less, because an unwarranted argument is not a strategic decision to sit on. That's all the relevant stuff you need to read. I will otherwise evaluate the Debate as it happens. You can see my judging record, I have judged about five high school policy Debate tournaments on the intellectual property rights topic including late elims for several great teams.

Theory & Topicality

I dislike trying to evaluate practices about behaviors out of round. However, I think there are layers. First, disclosure is clearly different because it is relevant to the particular round at hand. This doesn't mean you can't break a new aff - I'm pretty okay with that, but if the other team wants to go for new affs bad, they have the right to do so. I am just trying to say that I am not going to revoke anyone's right to run any argument OR to do what they so choose as long as they can defend it. You want to break a new aff in front of me? That's fine. You want to read new affs bad because the other team broke a new aff in front of me? That's fine. I'm going to end up evaluating it based on how it comes down in the particular moment. Just know that I would be willing to vote either way. The same goes for conditionality. For new affs bad and conditionality, I've been on every possible side and I've both won and lost in every iteration (I've won going for condo against Georgetown, I've lost going for condo against Minnesota, I've won when Houston went for condo in the 2AR, I've lost when Kansas went for condo in the 2AR). For other forms of theory and topicality, I'm familiar with typical policy knowledge around even highly technical process counterplans, believe it or not I grew up in the middle of Michigan so there was actually a time in my life when the ONLY thing I knew about Debate came from people from Michigan State who were on Will Repko's side of Debate moreso than anyone I'm currently affiliated with. I also beat Michigan State GM at the NDT in 2023 and ADA in 2024 when I got 17th seed at each with Wayne State. The first time I beat them when I was going for topicality against them, the second time I beat them on a performance-based voter when they went for topicality.

Familiarity: High

I feel I can understand and comprehend every argument that people run because there's not much that gets past me inside or outside of Debate. I think my knowledge level in many venues of life is pretty high, I have studied a lot and lived a lot and been through a lot and done a lot in my life. All that is to say that I think I can comprehend what is stated within Debate rounds. I have gone for several different arguments over the course of my career.

Framework Debates

T-USFG - Unbiased. Fairness and/or clash is fine. There's more structural problems that may arise when going for solely skills and/or education impacts, but if it's strategic then go for what the 2NR calls for. I think the latter two impacts require winning that state engagement is uniquely key, but is better in the scenario if you want to directly refute the aff's theory of power.

The aff responses that I personally don't like:

1: Guilt assuasion good, or judge framing specific to me as a person from what you know about me.

If your response is that I should feel guilty and lean into that, unfortunately I already have decided I will not. I have heard very few teams say this, but I just wanted to say that there are better answers. Some teams are functionally saying this with their arguments, I would just try to explain the answer in a more nuanced way. Or your impact could outweigh. Overall, I'm not really a fan when you try to invoke me, my career, my teammates, or anything like that. You can use examples, but don't implicate me in it. I think it doesn't go down with the judge as well as you might think when you try to talk about their personal experience in Debate, or out of round interactions.

2: Counter-model without answers or framing to neg DA's.

Lots of teams want to stake their 2AR on the counter-model solving Debatability. That's fine, but you have to do a bit more engagement with some of the arguments about limits, predictability, clash, what the model looks like, how it's sustainable and tenable for Debate. If you're going for the impact turn alone, just identify how the ballot provides uniqueness and what you prioritize. A role of the neg is always a good idea in both options.

The neg responses that I personally don't like:

1: We could not truth test the aff, therefore you should automatically vote neg on presumption.

If this is an argument to insulate topicality before case because of how it precedes substance, that would be preferable. Articulation as an instant negative ballot is unpersuasive. I will not pull the trigger unless actually conceded by the 2AR and heavily implicated in the 2NR.

2: Fairness turns fatigue, especially the card that conducted a small set of studies on students in Poland.

I personally think that arguments about clash interacting with the case because of refinement and breeding better advocates are far better. Fairness is fine, the utility of fairness as a framework impact does not come from its ability to generate burnout and exhaustion through the limits DA, but instead about how the limits DA inhibits the functionality of Debate as an activity. If the aff argument literally just boils down to "making us Debate makes us exhausted" then perhaps, but it's still not a round winner for me personally. I think that fairness is better to bracket out case entirely, or if you have a solid presumption push.

Tactics framework based on parameters or exportable methods is strategic against for some affs, and is increasingly gaining in popularity. I am alright with that. However, don't run tactics framework and plan-focus framework both in the same 1NC, that doesn't make sense to me and I will be liberal with aff responses. I would prefer not to judge a debate where the aff team stakes a perf con violation based on tactics framework double turning another critical position in the 1NC unless it is another framework argument. If they win tactics framework, that would seemingly bracket out many concerns about the negative's form of engagement. If you already beat back tactics framework, then I fail to see why you need perf con.

Disadvantages

I have judged many disadvantages. Most recently, I have voted for a politics disadvantage around the debt ceiling. I am familiar with many different horsetrading, rider, elections & other forms of politics disadvantages in Debate on a multitude of various topics. I also am familiar with economy disadvantages, and I would say that I enjoy evaluating debates around either of those types of disadvantages. I could vote either way on the question of intrinsic-ness and fiat obviating the link.

I think case-specific DA's are great, i.e. a pharmaceutical disadvantage to an affirmative that overrules the previous Myriad ruling (it seems that it probably links, not to say that I would be biased either way in that round if I was judging; I would love to see that Debate play out). I think that if you have a case-specific DA and you have me in the back, I would certainly prioritize that unless time coverage on the flow makes it preferable to go for a specific argument. But in your pre-round prep, you should definitely make that one of your top options.

I am familiar with agricultural impacts, grid impacts, democracy impacts, resource war impacts,proliferation impacts (Japan Korea Turkey Vietnam & Philippines particularly, I'm not hip to information about Australia prolif to be honest), US-China War, impacts US-Russia War impacts, EU & NATO impacts, disease impacts especially about ABR, and anything and everything relate to climate change. Those ten impact categories constitute

I should be able to explain back to both teams the turns case arguments as well as the responses against turns case after the 1AR, respectively. Ideally, I would like to know what both sides have said on that question before the final two rebuttals. These will often determine the debate if I resolve them in one's side favor strongly. Do not blow them off, and clearly flag them in the block.

I would prefer you to distinguish links that are based on the mandates of the plan versus the effects of the plan, although for many DA's, it should be quite obvious based on the content of the 1NC Shell. I tend to default to the idea that uniqueness frames the links, although I think I could be convinced otherwise and that one is not a strong position.

Counterplans

Textual competition alone is difficult, but you can go for any argument if you believe you can win it. Counterplans that compete from the words "should" or the immediacy of the plan can be called into question. Again, as aforementioned, I'm unbiased on theory debates and will technically evaluate it. If you would rather have a debate concerning the theoretical legitimacy of your process counterplan in order to bypass engaging with the case extensively, then I understand. I will do my due diligence and ensure I evaluate the debate accordingly. All I will say is that either side can win in this scenario, and neither side should blow off any argument here.

The more that competition is derived solely from immediacy, the word "should", or articles like "the", then the likelihood that the aff should stake the round on theory also goes up. However, I am just the judge here to technically evaluate the round, and you can certainly go for solvency deficit arguments or the perm if you would rather do that. I think perm do the counterplan as a permissible reading of the aff makes sense if you can beat back their particular answers to that perm as opposed to the perm do both.

Advantage counterplans combined with net benefits based on the affirmative solvency mechanisms seem pretty theoretically legitimate to me, unless you are planning on raising an issue with the entirety of negative fiat. Kicking planks is something that increases the viability of conditionality for the aff, but is not something that warrants an automatic loss. I would personally prefer it if you did not kick planks though for my own clarity. Consult & Condition Counterplans = Contextual. The quality of solvency evidence could persuade me they are viable based on the aff.

I personally am unbiased about judge kick, I think that everyone on both sides makes a huge deal about it. If the 2NR is going for a counterplan and they do not win the counterplan is better than the status quo or the affirmative, I am unlikely to vote negative regardless of what else happens. However, if the aff is losing on offense specific to the aff independent from the counterplan, then I don't think they're in a great spot either and it should not be a surprise if the neg manages to squeak out a win from the 2AR failing to respond. My caveat is that you have to clearly flag your position earlier in the Debate.

I will default to evaluating counterplans through sufficiency framing, defense-offense framing, and through traditional cost-benefit analysis. I also will give weight to quality evidence, but I will not use that to intervene at the end of the Debate. This means that if one team wins the Debate, great evidence will not change the outcome of the decision. However, using and applying that evidence, especially if it is comparative and qualified, will certainly increase the chance of you winning the Debate.

Performances, Critiques and Case Turns

All of these are very easy for me to evaluate, and I have very little generic advice here. You do not need an alternative, but you must clearly flag what you want me to vote on in the 2NR if you are going for this. I am just as willing to depart from traditional norms as I am to uphold them. I would say these clash debates or case-specific debates are what I am most comfortable with.Links can come in lots of different forms. You should centralize whichever link the 1AR has done the least amount of work on, unless your strongest link has lots of engagement and you still want to go for it because you personally think their answer is bad. In short, ink time is helpful to think about as a deciding factor for what to prioritize, but isn't the end-all-be-all.

I am familiar with lots of impact turns, from dedev to spark to heg, and I have done lots of work over my own career to go for these arguments. I am also familiar with the answers to them, which is why I would say I am unbiased in these debates. Any creative, unusual impact turn you have put lots of research into is something I would love to see play out. However, if you are aff, I wouldn't worry if you have me in the back. Just spend appropriate time here and if you don't have evidence for an odd scenario, then you can always save yourself by asking about it in cross-ex or using smart analytics here.

On the question of framework, I will only choose the path of a middle ground if it is explicitly advocated by one of the two teams in the final rebuttals, and they win that it is far preferable to an exclusive interpretation. If I determine that I will weigh the aff, the neg will likely be behind. It is not impossible to win in this scenario, but many critiques that aren't premised on revolutionary material action will either have structural problems related to uniqueness or the perm double bind.

Victor Rivas Umana Alsion Montessori School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PDT

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: Please cc

gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

fairmontdebateteam@gmail.com

If you have any questions about NSD this summer come chat with me! I will be assisting as PF Curriculum Director at Philly I and II. Come join us.

King/NDCA/TOC

I have judged a lot of rounds folks. The most joy I have in rounds these days is when we are closest to the orbit of the topic literature and doing comparative analysis/weighing/evidence comparison. This is basking in the warm topic sun. This piques my curiosity more at the moment and the farther from the center we go the colder I get. We have come a long way at a lot of these tournaments and I would prefer more topical oriented rounds where possible.

It is with awe
that I beheld
fresh leaves, green leaves,
bright in the sun.

- Basho

Background

My research interests for the last 10 years and in grad school have been legal history, press freedom, and the First Amendment. Check out more recommendations for long-form journalism and press freedom here at www.FreePressForAll.org

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 3

Non-Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Harishri Savdharia Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Hitakshi Savdharia Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Abby Schirmer Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:46 PM EDT

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Liz Scott JR Masterman 4 rounds

Gavin Serr Park City 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:09 PM MDT

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City.

I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I have been a PF lab leader at NDF, CNDI, and PFBC.

I mostly competed in PF in high school, but also dabbled in LD and speech.

I judge about 100 rounds per year. Most of these rounds are national circuit PF, though I sparingly -- and generally begrudgingly -- judge local Policy, Parli, and traditional LD.

I study economics at the University of Utah.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

-- While I've included some thoughts on different types of arguments below, my foremost preference is that you make your favorite argument in front of me.

-- I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

-- Debate is a communicative activity. I will never flow off a speech doc.

-- I believe PF, LD, and Policy are all evidence-based formats, so quality evidence -- and quality spin on evidence -- is very impressive and persuasive. I flow author names and prefer that extensions include those.

-- Be silly and down to earth and not dominant or aggressive. A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

-- I have no qualms with speed in any format, but if you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold. I will 'clear' you twice before I stop flowing.

-- Impact comparison is very important to me. It is likely that both teams will prove some harm/benefit of the AFF. Whether that becomes a net harm/benefit of the AFF often hinges on weighing. Tell me why I should vote for you even if I buy your opponents' argument.

-- Tell me how to decide what's true and resolve competing claims. The team that makes the most "prefer our evidence/empirics/claims because" statements tends to win my ballot.

-- I do not time speeches or track prep. Please hold one another accountable so I don't have to. If I have begun doing so, you should all feel called out.

-- I'm a stickler about extensions. In my RFDs, I sometimes find myself saying things like: "the Neg wins that the Aff causes a recession, but I'm not sure why a recession is bad, so I ignore it." You should be making complete arguments in your final speeches. This also illustrates the importance of terminalizing impacts early -- such statements are most likely when there was not an impact to begin with.

-- I don't think it is good to advocate for death or self harm, and I do not think that is a bias I will be persuaded to overcome.

-- I have never voted on presumption and I doubt you'll be the first to change that.

— It’s rare I agree that there is zero risk of a claim at the end of the debate.

Evidence and Email Chains:

-- Anyone who does not meet NSDA evidence standards should politely strike me.

-- Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs. Title it something logical and addgavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

-- I tend not to open the email chain. If I'm instructed to read a specific card, I will.

-- You should not need a marked doc. An inability to flow is a skill issue that should not delay the round. I can be petty with speaks in these situations.

-- I will only vote on arguments that are in both summary and final focus.

-- Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

-- I like to see weighing done as soon as possible. If weighing is introduced in the second summary, I'll be much more sympathetic to quick answers to it in the first final focus. No new weighing in final focus.

-- Warrants for your weighing will be most persuasive when predicated on claims from your evidence. It’s a lot more challenging to avoid intervention when weighing is one or two unwarranted or analytical sentences in each team’s summary.

-- Crossfire and flex prep exist so that we do not need a 'flow clarification' timeout during the debate.

— I like specificity within the confines of NSDA rules, which forbid plans but suggest debaters may have a generalized advocacy. I certainly don’t think Affirmative teams need to defend every possible interpretation of the resolution, and I’m open to believing they don’t even have to defend the most probable one. I am especially impressed by Negative teams prepared to address specific advocacies with specific answers. I also feel comfortable offering the Negative more leeway to illustrate opportunity cost of the resolution in ways that more traditional judges may perceive as “too policy.” PF resolutions are specific enough that I think competitive counter-advocacies are completely kosher.

— Consistent with the above view, I think many teams would be well-served by reading topicality in front of me. In contrast to other events - where this would make no sense — I absolutely believe the Aff can read topicality too. Explicitly implicate T as offense and defense to avoid intervention. I’m similarly willing to consider a won perm as terminal defense in debates with specific advocacies

— “This isn’t policy” will never be a persuasive answer to well-explained or well-researched arguments in front of me. I would softly suggest doing more research and making valid arguments instead of whining.

Kritiks:

-- I have coached a couple K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting. That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach.

-- Assume I know nothing about your literature.

-- Please keep in mind that I am of incredibly average intelligence.

-- I will not vote on arguments premised on another debater's identity. An argument premised on your own identity is certainly permissible.

-- Aim to engage. I am most interested in criticisms that directly indict the Aff or otherwise have a link to the topic. I'm less interested in criticisms that rely on a ROTB or framework argument to exclude other offense in the round. Conversely, I am most impressed by Aff teams willing to contest the thesis of the critique -- even if the response is merely analytical.

-- Consider me a lay judge in this realm, but feel free to read one if you would find it strategic or fulfilling.

Theory:

-- I will vote on disclosure theory if a team does not disclose at all. I’m slightly less willing to evaluate paraphrase theory.

— Aside than the above exceptions, I would strongly prefer not to judge a theory debate. I will evaluate the round as debated, but I will use speaker points punitively if you ignore this preference.

-- Unless I feel compelled to contact DCFS, I will be skeptical of accusations of "abuse."

IVIs:

-- I’ve yet to be impressed by one. If you can’t write a relevant theory interp, I’m not sure how these could produce positive norms. Ad hominems don’t persuade me.

Tricks:

-- This is where I will be most likely to intervene in my decision. I would rather watch paint dry.

LD/Policy

-- I am a flay judge here.

-- (Almost certainly correctly) assume I know nothing about the topic. You will have to explain your acronyms to me.

-- Top speed may challenge me, but you do you. I'll 'clear' twice.

-- I'm willing to evaluate nearly any argument, but I will be most comfortable hearing the kinds you would expect in a Public Forum round. Clarity and explanation will otherwise be most useful to you.

Alina Shivji Park City 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 1:05 PM EDT

TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.shivji1@gmail.com

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONTLINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.

INTERVENTION

I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.

Lindsey Shrodek University School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat June 29, 2024 at 6:22 PM EDT

I'm Lindsey, I have some past experience judging and coaching public forum debate.

My Paradigm

I will vote for the team that presents a stronger logical argument. I will consider arguments on quality of evidence presented, arguments speaking to why your case is impactful, and strength of responses to the opposition's argument.

The New York Post Article

I want to clarify a few things as succinctly as I can for future reference.

1) I do not condone banning topics from discussion or any judging style that automatically disregards a topic based on the subject matter. I have always been open to discussing difficult topics and will continue to be an advocate of freedom of speech.

2) In high school, I did not have access to many debate resources and did not regularly compete at national circuit tournaments (usually we had around 5 teams per tournament). Because of this, I often found advising and judging from online paradigms, forums, or message boards. When I became a Judge briefly, parts of my paradigm were meant to give free advice related to style and decorum. The main point I wanted to convey is that being respectful and genuine about presenting arguments leads to more persuasive argumentation. Contrastingly, utilizing provocative arguments only for the purpose of shocking a judge and winning is less fulfilling. I apologize if my language came across the wrong way, debaters should have the freedom to explore any topic they want. Additionally, this was targeted specifically to theory and K debate, where debaters often have no advanced preparation of what the topic is going to be.

3) I do not support the recent publication of videos of debaters with the intention to shame their argument style. Every debater deserves the autonomy to make arguments that they want without fear of being cancelled or harassed on twitter. I think we should all try to be more open-minded about different ideas and understand that young people will often make mistakes and grow from them. Be respectful, engage with people in a good-faith way, and allow students the space to change their mind.

4) A good lesson for debate (and life) is to always try to understand nuance and different perspectives. I hope that anyone that reads any article (especially an article of this nature) would be intrigued enough to learn more, to contextualize their information, and to understand evidence before drawing conclusions. I will post the full conversation I had with James below for context.

Hi Lindsey: I am writing an article for The Free Press about judging bias in the NSDA. This bias is illustrated by Tabroom paradigms that tell students what they can and can’t say on the basis of politics and ideology.

I am reaching out because you along with other judges and the NSDA are the focus of my reporting. I will be publishing your name and your Tabroom paradigm below. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to comment and answer the following questions. I am reporting on the following comment from above:“...if you are white, don't don't run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” 1. What is an example of an argument that you believe a white student could not run because of their race? 2. Why did you eliminate this statement about race from your most recent paradigm update? If you could provide a response by9PM Eastern today (Fri, May 12), that would allow sufficient time for your comments to be incorporated. Best, James T. Fishback --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey James! I don’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will/won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space and that’s one reason I updated my paradigm. I want it to ultimately be the debater’s decision, but I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space. Another reason I eliminated this sentence was because I incorporated a similar idea in my section about progressive debate and I feel it captures the main idea better: I think debaters should communicate before the round to make sure both teams are aware of what topics will be discussed and are comfortable with it. In essence, I think arguments that may be super hard to argue for communities that are directly involved with the impacts should be discussed prior to the round to ensure debate is fun for everyone. My goal isn’t to “eliminate free speech”, but to have both teams be able to have a productive and fun debate. This kinda goes along with my first comment, but I didn’t eliminate the idea itself. I wanted to clarify later in my paradigm that students should notify one another to see if their opponents are comfortable with a proposed topic. I think these topics are important to be discussed, but not when one team is using the argument as a means to get a win without considering the feelings/experiences of their opponents (especially if their opponents are directly affected by the impact).

I am happy to clarify anything else if needed! Best, Lindsey Shrodek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Lindsey! This is helpful

Re: "I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space." If, before a round, a team of black students expresses discomfort about their non-black opponents' case because it details the impacts of defunding the police on black families, would the non-black team still running that argument without consideration for the experiences of their opponents factor into how you chose the winner/assigned speaks?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I consider everything that happens in round. The goal of debate is to be a productive, positive-sum experience for everyone, and debaters need to be considerate of that goal when deciding how to run an argument and whether to run it at all. You can look at my updated paradigm if you want more information as the one you have is nearly two years old.

Best, Lindsey Shrodek

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to know where my intentions lie, please know that I intend to judge every round to its entirety, regardless of subject matter, that is why I wrote to James: "I consider everything that happens in a round." Thank you for reading! :)

Bob Shurtz Hawken 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I am a flow judge. I find real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. Of course, it isn't the magnitude of your impact alone that matters. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but I would strongly prefer no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Sayeed Sidiqyar Brentwood High School 5 rounds

Sarah Simon Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Aryaman Singh Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 13, 2023 at 5:45 PM EDT

Tldr; Debate like a person with an audience to entertain and convince, not a machine playing a game

Why Not Tech?

Before I explain what I judge on, let me explain my background. I used to debate public forum for Columbus High School in Columbus, GA. During my first year of debate, I never debated Aff in competition. I also never ran any sort of “technical” argument - as to do so would have been an insult to not only my experience, but that of every other debater.

Public forum debate is a unique form of debate that has its roots in the traditions of democracy and civic engagement. It was designed to be accessible to everyone, regardless of their prior experience or expertise. As a judge, I value the principles of public forum debate and expect debaters to honor these traditions.

I believe that logic and reasoning should be the cornerstone of any successful debate. Evidence can certainly be useful, but it is not the only measure of a well-reasoned argument. I will prioritize clear and compelling reasoning over the quantity or quality of evidence presented. Evidence may be used to complement a logical argument - not replace one - and I will consider arguments presented without any evidence as long as a clear logical proposition can be established.

I strongly disapprove of technical arguments. Such arguments often prioritize form over substance, and can be used to obfuscate the true issues at stake. As a judge, I will not be impressed by clever tricks or gimmicks. Instead, I expect debaters to present clear and convincing arguments that can be understood by all. There is a topic that we came here to debate, and I expect to debate that topic alone - not some entirely irrelevant subject that:

Fails to demonstrate any understanding of the topic at hand;
Shuts out debaters from less advantaged schools that don’t have teams of coaches to concoct contrived and baseless arguments;
Makes the debate mind-numbing, boring, endlessly repetitive, and infuriating to watch or judge.

It is important to remember that public forum debate is not a purely intellectual exercise. It is a form of civic engagement, designed to encourage individuals to engage in meaningful dialogue and to learn from each other. As such, I will prioritize respectful and productive discourse over grandstanding or showmanship.

I want to stress the importance of honoring the history and traditions of public forum debate. This form of debate was designed to be accessible, engaging, and informative for all participants. It was not intended to be a technical or evidence-heavy exercise. By staying true to the original vision of public forum debate, we can ensure that this important tradition continues to thrive and serve its intended purpose.

And, in case any doubt remains, let me clarify my position on technical arguments once more. I will not vote for them. That does not mean, “I will not vote for them unless they are overwhelmingly better than the opponents”. It does not mean “I will not vote for them unless you use really fancy words to convey your points”. It means that I will, under no circumstances, vote for an argument that is unrelated to the topic, or a meta-critique of debate itself. A technical argument formulated by every professor at Harvard Law would lose to a team that did not show up, and the team that ran it would be awarded 25 speaker points for their efforts.

II. Flows, Speaking, and Spreading

As a judge, I expect debaters to speak in a clear and concise manner that is accessible to the average person. While I will be flowing the debate, I expect debaters to speak as if I am not. I do not want to see a 4-minute speech with 800 words that is delivered too quickly for the average person to understand. Remember, public forum debate is primarily about public speaking and persuasion. I do not want to see an LD or policy-style debate, nor do I appreciate jargon or buzzwords. If you decide to run a case that consists of spitting out dozens of pieces of barely developed evidence at a pace that leaves me out of breath just from listening, I will stop flowing your case entirely and judge you based on what I can retain in memory alone. This will not be good for either your case or your speaker points.

I want debaters to speak in a manner that is engaging and easy to follow, without resorting to technical terms or obscure references. Terms like "weighing," "dropped," "flow," "extend," "card," "impact," "tech," and "truth" are not useful in public forum debate and will not impress me. I prefer clear and straightforward language that is accessible to a general audience.

I understand that some teams may have attended debate summer camps that emphasize the aforementioned “technical” jargon and buzzwords. However, I expect all debaters to prioritize accessibility and clarity in their speaking style. Teams that fail to do so will not receive high speaker points from me. Remember, the goal of public forum debate is to create a public discourse in an open atmosphere, not to impress other debaters with indecipherable buzzwords masquerading as “technical” debate.

II. Calls, Crossfire, and Time

Crossfire is the most vital piece of the argument. It is the most intense interaction of the debate, and I expect both teams to be able to take advantage of it. I do not want to hear any requests that boil down to restatements of the argument that do no nothing to encourage interaction or critical thinking. You are given the chance to ask your opponents anything and demand an immediate answer. Use it. Done properly, crossfire should be more than informative - it should be entertaining. It is my favorite part of a round and I would appreciate it if you would humor me by providing a crossfire worth paying attention to. In recognition of its importance, I will value points made or concessions earned during crossfire as highly as I would if they were brought up in any other segment of the round. Crossfire should be the most stressful time of the debate for you as I will hold everything said against you, as will your opponents. In a real debate, would your audience forget the concessions you made just because they happened in a magical 3 minute window? No - so neither will I.

During grand crossfire, I expect participation from every debater. You are all allowed to talk - so I expect you all to use that ability. If I see a single person on a team dominating the conversation, both members will be penalized speaker points - for either shutting out your own teammate or for not actively engaging in the least scripted portion of the debate.

I expect you to think critically and call for evidence (if any is even presented) during crossfire. To promote a judicial choice of evidence, I will allow untimed calling for and review of the opponents evidence. I do not want to see evidence used that relies on flashy titles, abstracts, or the professional affiliations of the author. If evidence is used, tell me WHY it is valid. Tell me WHY the methodology is well suited to exploring the problem at hand. Tell me WHY I should trust in the study’s ability to be replicated, or why the authors’ conclusions are justified from the results they observed. On that note - PARAPHRASING IS NOT PLAGIARISM. PLAGIARISM IS PLAGIARISM. If you want to read the authors’ ideas word-for-word, feel free as long as the author is credited.

I will expect you to time both yourselves and your opponents. You are mature and skilled debaters and should not need someone to shut you down when you start going over time. If your argument can’t fit into the time constraints of the speech, that is an excellent indicator that your argument is overly complicated and likely to fail regardless.

IV. Deportment

While my paradigm may come off as harsh and restrictive, I assure you the intent is quite the opposite. I want debate to be lively, fun, educational, and entertaining for all. The preferences I have listed out help keep it that way. With that being said, I want to see emotion in your arguments - not machines reading off laptops. Humor is well appreciated and highly regarded. Joking insults are welcome, as long your opponents do not take offense to them. Sarcasm, wordplay, and good attitudes will take you far in life, but especially with me as your judge. Conduct yourselves well, don’t take yourself too seriously, think through your argument - and I can guarantee we all will enjoy the experience. I look forward to our round.

Will Sjostrom Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 5:13 AM EDT

Please add williamhsjostrom@gmail.com to the email chain

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated undergrad and am in law school now

PF Paradigm:

To be honest, I do not have as strong views on what I want to see in round as I may have a few years ago. As long as you keep the round safe, fun, and educational I will enjoy judging. Argument wise I place a strong emphasis on education, I really dislike bad faith arguments that harm the beneficial nature of the activity (i.e. frivolous theory).

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past. The farther you get away from disclosure or paraphrasing theory the more inclined I am to think it is frivolous.

I am a very good judge for you if you read cut cards and disclose your arguments on the wiki.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example, disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Shane Stafford The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 5:30 AM CDT

Email for email chains: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Update: 9/17/24

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

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1)Theory - Theory is not a game, it is for the improvement of debate going forward. I'm much more truth over tech on these issues. You will NOT convince me within the space of a debate round that paraphrasing is good or that disclosure is bad. In fact, as a squad, we are starting at Yale to disclose rebuttal arguments.

2)Understand what is theory and what are kritiks. IVI's are not a thing, pick a lane and go with one of the former arguments.

3)Presumption is a 1950's concept in debate. In fact, I would say that as a policymaker, I tend to favor change unless there is an offensive reason to trying change.

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

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

6) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce (email it) it in less 60 seconds.

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

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

9) Don't expect good points if you are blippy, you don't send out speech documents, or you send out a lot more than you actually read. Also, anything else that appears to be you trying to game the system or confuse your opponent. See #7 for good points.

10) Slow down, I'm not a lay judge, but flow judges need good signposting and good warrants, and not seven or eight analytic assertion arguments in a row

11) Weighing is comparative and needs time. Don't just talk about your argument.

12) If you read more than three contentions, expect your points to go down.

13) Ask me if you have questions

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

Andrea Stein Summit HS 4 rounds

Brandon Stewart Mission San Jose High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

Joshua Stinson Mira Loma High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 19, 2024 at 2:27 AM PDT

For Policy,

I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic. I have learned that in this topic I am a "truth" over "tech" judge. This means that you can use theory but it had better have standing.

I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case and the impact of these. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case. This also means that I am not a fan of "K"s as the students that have come to the tournament have learned, prepared for and are ready to argue the case not some attempt to "not compete". If you don't want to argue the topic, go to LD. If you are going to use a K it should be topical.

If you are going to spread, then you should email me a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.I can keep up.

I truly try hard to ensure that I only flow and weigh what the competitors have brought to the round and not my own knowledge or understanding. Having said that, a good policy team clearly drives what they want their judge to see.

For Public Forum, an event I have judged for nearly ten years now, I find that I am an impact-focused judge.

A team can win on impact and values, but since its PF , values alone will not yield victory. I have found I vote based on the following criteria:

Significant Impacts:
I want to hear why your arguments matter in the bigger picture. Whether you’re debating policy, philosophy, or critical perspectives, explain the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of your impacts.
Value-Based Argumentation:
In value debates (e.g., Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum), I want to see how your arguments align with the value or value criterion. If no value framework is established, I will default to evaluating which side provides the greatest overall benefit to society or individuals.
Clarity in Comparison:
If both sides have strong impacts, tell me which one matters more and why. Is it more urgent? Does it affect more people? Is it more probable? This kind of comparison makes your case stronger.

I appreciate when teams know their subject matter and can adapt their case "on the fly", are able to be specific about numbers, locations, names etc.

Disclosure theory: I am not a fan of disclosure theory. I believe that it distracts from meaningful discussion about the resolution or important issues. Students coming to the tournament know that some schools have many coaches and large teams to help them and some schools are small and of limited resources. They arrive anyway and compete. They did not come to debate the socio-economics of high school debate, but rather the topic they have worked on all month.

I extend my attitude about disclosure theory to "K"'s. While there are some K's that are applicable to a topic, most a distraction from the debate.

Lastly, NOT EVERYTHING leads to NUCLEAR WAR. Please use this threat and outcome as lightly as possible (unless it applies) as I will be naturally skeptical that you have chosen the largest morality and most dire outcome to create the largest impact no matter how probable.

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 2 rounds

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

Worlds:

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

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

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

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

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

Stella Sung Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:12 AM PDT

JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Ninad Tambe Hamilton 4 rounds

Jeffrey Thormodsgard Sioux Falls 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 1:48 PM CDT

Jeffrey Thormodsgard

Assistant Coach of Debate at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls, SD

pronouns: he/him

Please add my email to the email chain: jeffrey.thormodsgard@k12.sd.us

I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students. Speech > Speech Doc

I prefer providing oral RFDs unless rounds are extremely complicated or messy —those RFDs take more time. I understand the commitment you put into the activity so I try my best to put the same amount of effort into judging and making a decision. Nothing is worse than when a judge does not care about what they do and does not give you real feedback because the whole point of the activity is education and to learn. Post round oral disclosure is good. I subscribe to (most of) Lawrence Zhou's thoughts on the matter here. If you're from South Dakota, bonus points if you read that one. ;)

My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate start time. When prep time ends, you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time. Assume I'm running the clock.

Public Forum

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. If you're going too fast, I'll communicate that in round. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language... If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up). I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275+ words per minute. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop it, it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.

Summary/FF:

I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.

Crossfire:

Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

Prep time/calling for cards:

If it looks like you are prepping, I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.

I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent rather than doing this inefficient one (1) card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do though, please be efficient. I blame inefficient evidence exchange on the team fetching the evidence, not on the team requesting it.

Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive English paper. If you paraphrase (1) you shouldn't be, and (2)then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct citation as well as the important/cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate. If you're using an email chain, I don't care how many tech. issues you have, I'm keeping a running clock. Have your evidence sent over at the start to your opp, or hand over your device when evidence is called for.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans

Run whatever you think will win.

Public Forum time structures are not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. No plan texts or counterplan texts please (note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument, just answer it...).

If you're running K arguments, I'm expecting strong blocks -your case relies on it. If you're using a K to avoid clash, don't. If you're spreading on a K, don't make the round harder than it has to be. K's should be about education. If no one in the round understands you b/c your argument is using complicated jargon and you're spreading, you aren't achieving your goal. Make it accessible. Non-topical Ks need to have justification and should be engaged with - don't be abusive and avoid vague alts.

Very high threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. Theory should be a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard.

Disclosure is good (on balance)

I feel that debaters/teams should disclose. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate.

ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

Framework

TLDR: If your version of debate doesn't promote clash, you're going to have a tough time winning my ballot. Beyond that, it's about the learning.

Postrounding

Postround as hard as you want. I won't change my decision, but I believe it helps education for the activity for both judge and debaters.

Other stuff:

Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible for you. Know that the tournament has an equity officer for a reason.
Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will fail. There's a reason speech times decrease.
Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. I try to be as wary as possible of my own implicit biases in giving low speaks for this. I've had too many of my students (especially women and POC) docked speaker points for being "too aggressive" towards or for "interrupting" their male opponents. If you feel I am unfair on this, postround me, and we can discuss.
I will negate speaks for pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did; etc. You need to meet your opponent at their best, as they should do to you.
Speaks from me should be seen as percentages sans the first number i.e. 30.0 = 100%, 29.9 = 99%, 29.8= 98%

I occasionally judge LD. My stances on all of the above carry over. You need to weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions - and tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. You should clearly communicate the connection of your philosophy to your contentions. While I like to think I have a functioning working knowledge of many of the V/C scholars, my background is in Lacanian lit. crit. (Marx, decon., race, gender, queer theory, etc. are all in my wheelhouse), so help me out with specifically who we're talking about and what facet of their oeuvre you're using. Ignore the contentions debate and lose. Ignore the V/C debate and lose.

Kate Totz The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

-- LD NOTE FOR 2024--

Speed is completely fine, but if you're going 90% full speed and up I will be a bit more reliant on the doc. I am fine with spreading (especially if it's clear) but am out of practice with flowing top speed LD rounds. I don't have a ton of topic knowledge, as I mostly coach PF now.

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - 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: ktotz001@gmail.com

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)

Iyana Trotman Southlake Carroll 4 rounds

Cheng Tu Richard Montgomery High School 2 rounds

Christian Vasquez The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 7:09 PM CDT

For the postseason tournaments:

I will intervene if I don't see a value to a theory debate in public forum. Times are too short to turn a debate into a sandbagging contest, and I won't listen anymore. Whether debate is a simulation or a game, I don't think these debates should determine the outcome of championships or bubble rounds. You initiating a theory debate means you have to believe there's truly something egregious going on. Disagree? You're welcome to, please strike me.

I do think people are still overestimating me in K debates. I have a passing understanding on most issues, but anything beyond the beaten path will leave me to my own thoughts on how an argument works, which isn't fair to any party involved. The last time I was reading anything close to most K literature was at least five years ago, and I'm more than likely far behind the times. Really, I have enough background knowledge to be dangerous but not helpful when left alone.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.
I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?
Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a white pomo tradition/understanding(French high theory). Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Kishore Vattikuti BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Joe Vaughan Scarsdale High School 7 rounds

Sophia Wang Westwood 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Maggie Woodward Flintridge Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 3:30 AM PDT

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

Yiwen Wu McLean High School 4 rounds

Cecilia Xi Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:15 AM PDT

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not tech > > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 wpm works). Otherwise, I cannot keep up flowing (I only use the speech/rebuttal doc for reference sporadically - I need to be able to hear you clearly). If I miss anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200-210 wpm).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Summary and FF: please collapse, extend and weigh.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanism, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Theory: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading theory, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. I only spectated a few rounds. It's hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to support your ROB. If you really want to run Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), run stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Muxi Yu Boston Latin School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 9:53 PM EDT

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, coached PF for Boston Latin School/did APDA in college. Tl;dr normal flow judge. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.
I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.
I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)
I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Also have never judged a k

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.

Justin Zhang Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:04 AM CDT

Hi, I debated PF for four years on the national circuit for Seven Lakes from 2018-2022.

gtoc 3x, nsda 3x, nsda finals

zhang.justi@northeastern.edu

Update for Harvard Congress 2025:

I did Congress once in high school at a nat circuit tournament and broke to finals, but that's pretty much the extent to my experience with the event. I understand the basic criteria of how judges generally rank speakers/POs, so don't feel like you need to change up your debating style because I'm a PF judge. If anything, badly made refutations just for the sake of trying to spark clash will probably bump you down points in my book.

If you want more specific paradigm information, feel free to reach out, or check out Corina Aniceto's paradigm. I agree with pretty much all of what she says.

PF:

I will not flow off of or look at a doc. I do, however, want to be on the chain to expedite looking for evidence if necessary.

Defense -implicate the defense I won't do it for you AND weigh the defense against their case.

Turns -please extend warrants for turns and implicate them.... also weigh the turns against their case.

Weighing -Please make it comparative and interactive.

Frontlining - second rebuttal should frontline everything, no sticky defense.

speed - if I can't understand u and miss warrants, I'm not ghost extending them for you. So go as fast as you want at your own risk.

Progressive Arguments -I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating almost all progressive arguments. With that being said, I am very receptive to reasonability arguments and "we can't engage" answers as well.

msc-

am okay with and would prefer to cut grand for a min of prep but up to debaters.
please try to setup the email chain ahead of time so we can save time
will not entertain post rounding.
ill give speaks adjusted by division. for instance, an average varsity speech may receive a 28-28.5 in the varsity division, but that same speech may receive a 29-29.5 in JV etc.

Login to Tabroom

Tournament of Champions

2023 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Gold Paradigm List

Judges