Tabroom.com

Mid America Cup

2022 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Lillian Albrecht Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 10:37 AM CDT

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Rohan Bajpai Westwood 4 rounds

Bryan Benitez Hire 6 rounds

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 6 rounds

Madhavi C Mission San Jose High School 2 rounds None

Bo Ava Chen Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Avinash Chivakula Flower Mound High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 10, 2022 at 7:45 AM EDT

I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to what you all have prepared!!

I have experience on every major circuit in the country in various events. I specialized in extemp, congress, and world schools, but I have experience in and an understanding of every event.

Speech and Debate are the antithesis of complacency, and I expect competitors to represent that by challenging and changing content and arguments throughout the year. Do not get comfortable with the normal. Challenge and change the status quo, and that starts with creativity.

TLDR: Tech>Truth but I have a much lower threshold for blatantly wrong statements.

If you have any questions or advice, simply ask me after the round or email me here: achivakula@gmail.com

LD/CX: I am largely tech over argument, excluding certain situations. I am not opposed to any kritiques or technical arguments, but I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. I am a strong believer that complicated or convoluted arguments that are conveyed poorly are far worse than a simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly. I'm fairly well-read on philosophy, but if you are going to attempt arguments of that vein, you best be prepared to utilize that argument in a rational and pragmatic way.

PF: I want to hear strategic and planned responses that actually signpost where and what the judge and opponents need to pay attention to. Way too many PF rounds become messy, and both sides misconstruing arguments in good or bad faith. If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.

Congress: I have spent most of my debate career in congress and extemp, so I know what fluff is and what is real. I do NOT take kindly to excessive theatrics, a lack of clash, and a lack of real content. I also know when your speech is nothing but "rhetoric" versus actual points. I need to see proactive and unique points, especially creativity and risks. As for the PO, I need to see you stand out. All PO's are not created equal, and if you can have a hold over your chamber while being a charming or dynamic competitor, I will thank you and vote you highly. Take risks, don't let this event homogenize into people doing the same thing over and over again.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Performance and presentation matter, and they absolutely will reflect positively on your ranking. However, I see extemp as a mix between speaking and debate. I want to see the content, the link chain, the impact, and the warrants. Tell me why your topic matters, its effects past the direct "what the eye can see", and compare it. Use the skills of persuasion and informing and give me an argument. If you can do that and communicate your point effectively, you are absolutely going to rank highly with me.

World Schools: I absolutely give merit to the content and the arguments here. However, this event gives the opportunity to branch out and address arguments from a much more holistic and broader perspective. Take control of that opportunity. I give a lot of leeway here, but in the end this is world schools. All arguments are fair game for me.

Interp/OO/Info: I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the event, and view these events as more so to cater to your preferences than mine. Show me what you got!

David Coates Edina High School 3 rounds

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

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maddie Cook Lakeville 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 2:31 PM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

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

Experience:

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

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

General:

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

Evidence Issues:

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

Speech Preferences:

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

Theory:

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

Pet Peeves:

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

Congress:

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

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

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

Lynne Coyne Myers Park High School 6 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.

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.

Xing Dong Burden of Proof (BoP) 2 rounds

Zach Dyar Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:19 AM CDT

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: zdyar@wisc.edu . Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

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).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. I'm also an Econ/Poli Sci major so I have a pretty solid BS meter.

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 above 225 wpm 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

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

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

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). 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). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- 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 rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- 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 :(

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 biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and 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, 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.

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School 2 rounds

Johnathon Giesecke Belvidere North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM CDT

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

It’s not an argument without a warrant.
'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
‘Probability weighing also isn’t real
Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.
Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus
It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense
Miscellaneous Stuff

Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there
Have preflows ready
open cross is fine
Flex prep is fine
K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.
I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory
I don't care where you speak from
I don't care what you wear

Michelle Gripenstraw Brentwood High School 4 rounds

Joy Hadome Hire 6 rounds

Wyatt Hatfield Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Javier Hernandez Christopher Columbus High School 2 rounds

Tina Ho BASIS Chandler High School 3 rounds None

Haitao Hu Carmel High School 2 rounds

Charlie Jackson Edina High School 3 rounds

Brendan Kelley Iowa City West 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 8, 2023 at 11:29 AM CDT

Hello Debaters, I debated four years of public forum at Eagan High School in Minnesota. Now I'm a coach for Iowa City West High School. During my time debating, I was both of first and second speaker, but enjoyed being second the most.

I don't want a messy round, and you don't want me to have to find a winner once the round is over, so here is how I want rounds to go:

As a broad overview, I strongly believe that the heart of PF debate is a round in which a random person should be able to come off the street, judge, and be able to provide a decent explanation of who won and why. As a result of that, I will attempt to judge that style as much as I can. I want to see clear linkchains read throughout the round and explained counterargs to what the other team says. Taking the time to slow down and explain your args and how they impact the round overall will be a lot better then just card dumping and seeing what sticks.

Overall, lean closer to lay appeal than tech, and drive home the 2-3 key points you need to win. As for some other random stuff here's this:

Cross-Fire

I absolutely think cross-fire is the most undervalued and unappreciated part of the round. I love cross-fire. If you use it to good effect and carry it throughout the round, it could be a deciding factor for me.

Evidence

If key evidence is contested throughout the round or one of the teams ask that I review it, I may call to see it at the end of round.

If we are online, use kelleybrendanw@gmail.com for email chains: I'll only look at it if there is an issue post-round, but let's have someone set one up before round in case it's needed.

Flowing

I will flow whatever you say. Run whatever you want, and I will weigh it in round. One thing to note, I have never been able to flow sources well, so please don't just say the name of the card, remind me what the card or block says. If you are dropping an arg/contention/etc, clearly let me know so I know you are trying to make a strategic decision and not just forgetting about it. Don't try to drop a something to get out of a turn though, that's still offense for the other team.

Speed

If I catch it, I will flow it. One thing to note, I'm not that fast of a writer, so if you spread, I will not catch it.

Weighing

Like I mentioned above, I want to see clear linkchains. Ideally, you have a super logical linkchain that's flowed throughout the round. I'm far more likely to pick a clean linkchain with a small impact then a linkchain that requires a lot of steps to get to nuclear war.

Speaks

I'm sure you have heard it all before, so not much to say, only that cross will be the fastest way to gain or lose points on my watch.

Progressive Args

Like I said before, I will flow whatever you say. Be warned though that I don't like them and I have a super low bar that your opponents need to clear to beat it. The only thing I'm a lot more understanding for is in-round evidence issues or clear rule violations.

Random Stuff

If you are confused by what the other team is saying, assume I am also confused, so ask them about it.

Please do an off-time roadmap

I do plan on disclosing at the end of round

I am the worse with technology, so give me a second, then maybe one more :)

If we are online, and there is an issue with hearing your opponents, please speak up

Please time yourself

If you have any questions just ask. Good luck, have fun and make some good memories.

Farid Khairollahi Brentwood High School 2 rounds

Rumana Khan BASIS Chandler High School 3 rounds

Parker Klyn Theodore Roosevelt High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 9:04 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

I love debate and enjoy judging.
Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
Fulfilling my team's obligation.

Also, I'm on the 2024-2025 NSDA Public Forum Topic Selection and Wording Committee. Send me ideas!

Public Forum

TOC 2024 update: You should be so proud of your hard work and talent getting you this far. I am genuinely honored to be part of what is the pinnacle of many debaters' careers, and I am looking forward to judging you.

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints in PF, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (stock, K, theory, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

I have a strange relationship to these events as up until this year my exposure to them has pretty much exclusively been through LD circuit rounds on YouTube / college CEDA policy / scraping the wiki for your best topicality shells. Long story short, in all events, I want to judge the highest-level debates possible, so whatever your national circuit meta is, debate like that. I still don't really know what a value premise or criterion is but I do know LARP/plans/K/K affs/theory/T/FW debate etc.

Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

Fine with speed (send docs obviously).

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

Novices: Do your best! Debate like your coaches taught you to, and use your instincts. (:

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this.

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Rajeev Kotrannavar William G. Enloe HS 2 rounds

Nate Kruger Oakwood School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 7:48 AM EDT

NOTE FOR BERKELEY: IF YOU MEOW AT MY CAT AND SHE MEOWS BACK YOU GET A 30. IDK IF SHE WILL SHE DOES LIKE HALF THE TIME. UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA TAKE THAT RISK

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.

i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol

oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.

in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)

good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them

if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)

for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!

Shalaka Kulkarni Mission San Jose High School 2 rounds

Preeti Kumar Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

yan lan Winston Churchill High School 6 rounds

Nathan Lee University School 2 rounds

Zhang Li Sunny Independent 2 rounds

Jesse Lin The Abraham West Independent Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 2, 2020 at 4:40 AM EDT

Personal/Background

I debated for 4 years with Lincoln East High School in Lincoln, NE, consisting of 2 years of LD and 2 years of Policy. In LD I was a state quarterfinalist and in Policy I was state champion in addition to clearing at NSDA. I also debated on the national circuit, mainly at Midwestern bid tournaments, with middling success—I am more familiar with how nat circuit policy operates than nat circuit LD nowadays. Currently I am an undergrad at Princeton studying physics. My greatest debate accomplishment is taking a selfie with Slavoj Zizek.

This paradigm probably sucks right now, because I am too lazy to update it. For the most part you should consider me open to any sort of argumentation.

Policy

General Notes

Clash and warrant/internal link comparison is what makes policy great. I see value in policy as both a game and an educational activity, but I think the latter is more important. Depth over breadth. Policy rounds are long enough that I should not have to intervene and do any work for you—2ARs/2NRs are the best speeches in debate for this reason.

I don't take prep for flashing/emailing.

Tag-team CX is fine.

Speed is awesome—PLEASE delineate between cards as well as tag/author name/card body either explicitly (I liked saying an over-inflected "and" between cards as well as "This is AUTHOR in YEAR") or with very obvious vocal pauses.

I personally was a critical debater in high school.

You should I assume I have no topic knowledge, especially in regards with abbreviations that may be common in this year's literature. Explain them to me at least once, then go wild.

Case

I'm much more persuaded by case defense and case argumentation in general than most. Terminal defense is legit and is a reason why affirmatives must extend and explain their impact scenarios and how the plan uniquely resolves them.

I default competing interpretations, but in-round abuse stories are much more persuasive.

Slow down when you read procedurals.

Interpretation debates are important and having bad credentials on your T advocate probably means your model of debate is flawed.

Enumerate exactly what ground you lose with case lists.

Theory

I generally like theory and find it fairly compelling against certain PICs, agent CPs, and the like.

I default to drop the arg and that the neg gets "one conditional advocacy or the squo".

DA/CPs

I'm pretty uninformed and inexperienced with this type of debate because of my high school background. Very technical politics scenarios or niche CP strategies will probably need to be explained more in-depth to me. Explain your buzzwords here, especially. That being said, I have no particular bias against this negative strategy and I enjoyed running it the times where I did.

Great! In high school I ran Cap, Psychoanalysis, Wilderson, Postcolonialism, and some Baudrillard.

I generally evaluate these technically as a variant of DA + CP, which means I'm open to kicking the alt on a K if you have convincing ethical framing that overcomes the link uniqueness question.

You should explain how the K interacts with the other layers of the debate, such as if the links are pre-fiat and if the alternative/framing operates similarly.

Roles of the ballot aren't auto-wins and they should actually mean something—define the thresholds for "performatively and methodologically" and justify why you meet them and why they're important for debate.

I'm quite receptive to performative contradiction arguments if the K is ran alongside other offs, but the argument needs to be developed. T doesn't perf con with a Cap K for example, but it might with Deleuze & Guattari.

K affs

They're cool and were what I mostly ran in high school. However, near the end of my debating career I've found that K affs are often extremely poorly constructed and vague. Advocacy texts are important for this reason, but if your literature excludes that possibility than so be it. At the very least, it's important that the affirmative ought to do something (or otherwise justify why doing nothing is aff ground...) and defend some sort of thesis proving why voting affirmative uniquely accomplishes something.

Framing is the most important part of a K aff. Remember that every assumption I have about how to evaluate policy rounds more or less goes out the window in light of a K aff—please tell me the new calculus I should adopt, and please make sure that role of the ballot/equivalent framing is not egregiously circular.

I like performance affs, but please have a more offensive reason to affirm than simply having an unorthodox strategy.

K affs need to do MUCH MUCH more work explaining how permutations function and what the "world of the perm" looks like than a traditional policy aff would. Absent detailed analysis, "perm do both" means nothing to me because K affs have likely eschewed plan texts and thus the normal rules of plan-CP competition theory. Perms often just become assertions that both aff and neg strategies could exist concurrently as abstract ideas, which might be true but is not an offensive reason to vote aff. Competing methodologies is one way to resolve this problem, but that framework for evaluating rounds is even more nebulous, but I think is much better when used and explained than simply misapplying perm theory. In K vs K debates, neg can get perm if they justify it, but generally I will presume that perms flow aff.

Framework/Clash of Civilizations

I have lots of experience with this type of debate, and although I was mostly on the K side of the clash of civs, in hindsight I am moved by either.

Like procedurals in general, K aff vs Framework is about which model of debate is better. As such, I am open to impact turns on why narrow policy focused debate is bad, but likewise am open to how K affs often start confusing and vague debates.

I think fairness-based strategies are much better than RP/policy education-based strategies for your framework (i.e., T-USFG > Plans Good FWK).

I think framework: weigh the aff is pretty much true, but is not an acceptable substitute for actually weighing the aff. Winning that framework interp just means you get to "bridge" the post-fiat/pre-fiat gap between aff plan and the K, but you still have to justify why your utilitarian/extinction first calculus of impacts is better than whatever ethical framing the K offers. In short, theory doesn't replace impact calculus.

I find blippy extensions particularly unconvincing on this flow. Because unlike cards that make factual claims, cards that make claims to a particular impact calculus/framing arguments are always implicitly "answered" by the K's framing, so please actually explain and debate these arguments.

General Notes

Do whatever you want! Debating on the Nebraska circuit and nat circuit has acquainted me with the gamut of debating styles: lay, trad, progressive, etc. For your information, though, I primarily ran Ks in high school. Tech > truth, but I think the burden of rejoinder is very low against blatant untruths. I will generally evaluate rounds through epistemic modesty absent any framing argument that explicitly contradicts that (a prioris, certain role of the ballots, etc.).

Also, I don't want to be on the email chain. I still have some naive ideals about how debate is a communication event and that I should presumably be able to hear and understand your arguments without having to read them off my laptop.

Speed

Spreading is fine. Please be clear. I will say "clear" or "slow" if necessary. Do not spread analytics the same speed as cards, and especially do not spread interps or advocacy texts. Also, please pause when you transition between flows.

Please verbally distinguish in an obvious way the boundaries between two different cards, cards and analytics, tags/authors/card bodies—not doing so is my biggest pet peeve with spreading in debate, otherwise I think speed is cool. Because it seems like no LDer does this, I will reward +0.1 speaks if you do, and moreover you stand a higher chance to win the round b/c then I will be able to flow everything.

Theory/T

If your style of debating involves strategic use of theory/T, I will probably not be the best judge to evaluate it. I no longer know what the norms are for theory/T are in LD debate—please debate with that in mind.

Please slow down on theory/T. There is a 0% chance I will catch all your spikes if you spread them at the same speed as the case proper.

Also, I do not particularly like disclosure theory, and in general I don't think 1AR theory is strategic unless the 1NC is egregiously abusive.

In-round abuse is key.

I have no predisposition on RVIs good/bad, but I default drop the argument (i.e., no RVI) and competing interpretations.

I think which side gets presumption depends on the wording of the resolution, but most of the time I presume neg.

I default to comparative worlds.

Policy arguments

LARP is fine, but please make sure to clarify how your impact calculus works if there is framework contestation over issues like util or comparative worlds. I am more persuaded by policy strategies on the negative (CPs/DAs) than aff plans because I personally am not entirely convinced that plans are acceptable aff ground in LD.

Phil/Ethics

I love these arguments, but please slow down if you have a complex chain of premises and justifications to go through. I do not have the fancy practical reason justifications memorized, so please explain them briefly and relatively slowly. Most of my affirmatives in high school were Levinasian ethics args.

The argument I went for most in high school. Please try and avoid impact-justified frameworks if possible.

Links are best if specific to the affirmative, but links to the resolution in general are ok.

Make sure to explain the world of the alternative. It does not need to be particularly concrete, but I should have some sort of idea.

Klil Loeb Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 4:39 AM EDT

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

Sudhakshina Maddipatla Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

John McAtee Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

Jack Merkel Bergen County Academies 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 1:31 PM EDT

cosby '21 fsu '25

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 1 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

theory and ks are fine, I didn't run them in HS but I have gotten a lot more familiar with them in college ld so I would probably be a good judge if you want to try/test prog args. just please dont run trix, i hate them.

gendered language>disclosure>paraphrase>friv

for theory i default to competing interps and no rvis

ks are fine, just try to have a link to the resolution

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Jeffrey Miller Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), 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 -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. 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.

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.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

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. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. 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). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. 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.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

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.

Nina Mirfakhraie Eagan High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:40 AM CDT

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

Sonia Monga Langley 2 rounds

Brendon Morris Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:19 AM EDT

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude

PF Specific

I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Jesse Nguyen The Abraham West Independent Debate Club 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:28 AM EDT

Contact info: Jess, They/She, jessodebato@gmail.com

Speech drop > Email

Quick Version :p

1 = Strike me; 10 = Pref me

Tech over Truth

K-Debate & LARP = 10

Phil = 9

Topicality = 8

Theory = 6

Trix = 2

Long Version :/

Experience:

- Queer+ Blasian

- Policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD).

- Read phil and k

I am a queer Asian/Black person. To be objective, requires me to acknowledge my social location. I read Reid-Brinkley’s essay on Debate and racial performance last summer and was struck by so many things that were purely true. I want those in debate to not have to perform something that they are not. Being a black debator doesn’t mean you have to read Afro pess or a queer debator doesn’t mean you have to focus only on queer issues. But in the flip side, I see how insidious debate is with the privileging of extinction level impacts that continuously abstract debators from the resolution and their embodiment. This is where I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to, your bodies, minds, and wishes precede those of what is expected of you to get the ballot. Being Tabula rasa, to me, means to be anything but a blank slate, it requires understanding a multiplicity of difference that integrally affects how I adjudate the round - “the thing then becomes it’s opposite”, subjectivism turns to objectivism.

Current paradigm (2022-current) ~~~~

Preferences are 1 (low) - 10 (high pref). X marks the spot.

Stock/Util affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

Notice how I put stock “LARP” affs on the same level as K affs. I think I have equally voted for both styles of argumentation equally. I have seen some fantastic Stock affs that fundamentally interact with K’s and explain the K’s theory of power better than they do. It’s not about what kind of argument, but how you have weaved what you are defending to attack your opponents stuff. For example, I watched an stock gun control aff hit a queer rage aff, whereas the gun control aff used the theory of criminalization of urban areas to impact turn social death - that absent threat of force, the criminalization of entire populations in urban areas, which include queer people would have no justification.

Kritiks/K-Affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

I love K debate that is explained well! Give me good links, clever argumentation that interacts with your opponents arguments/assumptions! I love queer pess, Afro pess, historical materialism ~ new developments in K lit. As long as you make your arguments apparent and not obscure to the point that your opponent doesn’t know what’s going on, then we’ll be good.

Theory: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I will and have voted on topicality before, but I also understand how FW debate has been used to silence alternative styles of debating. What this means is that I’ll evaluate T on offense/defense - as long as you give me a clear picture about why the standards are important to fairness/education and how these benefits outweighs any of the aff’s impact turns on the T she’ll, then we’ll be good.Please don’t be blippy - T debate often happens like so, just make it clear and It’ll do you lots of good.

I’m open to lots of diff t stuff - such as the Reid-Brinkley Three tiered process stuff that’s going around, accessibility arguments, disclosure.

DA/CP: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I was taught stock policy by this one funny norfolk mentor, who always ranted about the Stock issues With that being said, I’ll evaluate CP/DA akin to how policy debators in the past have debated it. I’m cool with that.

Trix: X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Trix are anti-educational - due to an over focus on semantics that is exclusionary to ELL debators, and a heavy emphasis on technique that is exclusionary to debators with dis/abilities, I won’t evaluate trix.

Okay so note on spreading - there’s a distinction between speed reading and spreading that is found on the nat circuit. I’m leaning more towards pretty quick speed reading - I may miss things if you spread. Most of all make sure your opponent isn’t excluded in your in round practices. I used to hate spreading because of not being able to understand things, but now listening to circuit debators I really think it’s just a clarity thing cuz debators were just not being clear.

Old Paradigm (2019-2021)~~~~~~~~

~~policy read this -~~

~~I'm cool with k's/k aff's/or very stock policy debate.~~

I have a leaning towards K's, but equally said, I love it when stock policy aff's have substantial meaningful engagment with K. I'll vote for a da, t, really whatever you give me. Sorry this is short, but i can answer more questions and also i forgot to write a paradigm.

~~If you were to read anything on my paradigm please look at these three things first.~~

1) No spreading at all. Here's why: Debate has become a hyper-competitive activity. Debaters don’t get better at uncovering the truth or debating, they become better at winning debates. The hyper-competitiveness of debate has pushed the development of itself toward a technique-orientation. In the final analysis, the rounds are not about the truth and passion of your arguments, it’s about how many arguments you can put down, how fast you debate, analytical tricks you hide in your case, and your ability to extemp answers on the spot. This high standard of professionalism and prioritization of technique over truth leads to an exclusionary space. It constantly skills checks debators – excluding debators with disabilities and shutting out truthful arguments that don’t conform to norms. As a judge, I am obligated to disincentive ableism in all its manifestations. I want to change my community for the better. Although spreading is a norm in both LD and Policy, in order for debate to be a truly educational and inclusive space I must be diametrically opposed to it. Moreover, spreading excludes debators who don't speak english as a first language. I had many friends who weren't considered "successful" in this activity because they couldn't keep up. With this in mind, I am wholly truth over technique. Even if you don't word an argument in the most fluent way, I will still give it credence when I see you try your best to explain something to the fullest. What matters to me in debate, is not how many arguments you can dish out, but how you carry through with your arguments, how you defend them, and how you develop them within the round.

2) I have a high standard for quality of evidence. If you read to me a bunch of extinction impacts with highly suspect warrants, I will, on face, throw the impacts away. Here's why: Extinction impacts have become oversaturated in the debate space in both policy and LD. Once again we return to the topic on how debate has become a hypercompetitive activity - it's easy to win off extinction impacts when you can prove the tiniest bit of a risk, even if there is little or no connection between the resolution and the actual terminal impact. This trend in debate suffocates the real and harmful oppression impacts that affects a plethora of disadvantaged groups. In so far as low probability extinction impacts could always be used to make light of tremendously harmful oppression concerns, I have the obligation as an educator to view them with more scrutiny. My requirement is this - in order to have me evaluate your extinction impact you must have tremendously high uniqueness and deliver to me a crystal clear scenario-link chain. I will be flowing every single sentence of your warrant.

3) If you are gonna make a bunch of turns and analytics, they must be as clear as day. I want your arguments to be fully developed. Please explain fully how something is a turn, rather than merely labeling it as one. If these turns and analytics aren't sufficiently warranted I won't be able to evaluate them.

~~LD Debate -~~

General: I try my best to vote off what I hear in round and to minimize my biases. Even though debate is competitve, be cordial with eachother. Hostility is anti-education and I will intervene if I have to. Genuine engagement with your evidence (don't card dump!) and one another is really important to me.

V/C: I evaluate the round through whatever ethical lens you give me. That can be value/criterion, standard, R.O.B, etc.

Tricks: Blippy arguments make me sad :(.

Affirmative: I think debates are better when Affs are resolutional, but am open to kritial affs.

Topicality: I have a higher threshold in terms of actual abuse, but the opponent has to give reasons as to why potential abuse is bad. I'll vote for topicality based on what ya'll bring to the table.

Kritiks: Those are fine as long as they are coherent. Explain your link, impact, and alternative well to your opponent.

~~Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!~~

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Loan Nguyen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 7, 2023 at 8:49 AM CDT

Pronouns: they/them

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.

Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP.Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. Why not "all" ballots and just a majority? --> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.

I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!

What I look for in a round:

Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.

Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit

Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.

For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.

reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.

Pinak Panda Independent Hamilton High School 4 rounds

Tom Perret Park City 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 6:41 AM MDT

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

Anna Pinkerton Ardrey Kell High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 4:05 PM EDT

My email is annapinkerton3141@gmail.com, add me to the email chain.

Debated for 4 years for Ardrey Kell High School. Did PF and World Schools, now doing APDA in college.

I'm now coaching at Walt Whitman in the PF program!

Ask me about my paradigm before round if you have any questions

General:

Round narratives are important. Tell me who you impact, why they need help, how you help them and why that matters. Convince me to care about the issues you care about.
I default util, but util is boring so please give me something else (can happen in case with framing or later with weighing)
I don't need hard quantification. If you tell me you decrease bigotry or gentrification, I don't need a number for that, but I do need a general idea of how much you impact it.
I like args focused on social issues more than I like war/extinction args but I also understand that this is PF and PFers love nuke war.
Communication matters, if I don't understand your arg, I can't vote for it. This means two things, that speaking style matters and that you need to explain your link chain well.
Well warranted analyticals are better than a card with no warranting
I like banter in rounds, have fun make me laugh

Tech>Truth but at a certain point, the more outlandish the arg, the lower my threshold for responses (AKA don't tell me discrepancies in arrests for BIPOC are just a coincidence). I like impacts that are more interesting/nuanced or more realistic much more than the constant nuke war/extinction arguments.

Prog- I debated substance all of my debate career but I dipped into structural violence impacts/weighing in my last year. I now run theory shells to check abuse on my college league. I like prefiat weighing for substance args (AKA because I brought up impacts to a marginalized group you should vote me up to increase education in the debate space). I care a lot about accessibility/education, if you're going to run prog, have one of those as your prefiat impact. Don't run prog on novices or the local circuit, it's bad form. The exception to this is trigger warning theory.

LARP: I don't like trix. DAs and plans/CPs are completely fine, go for it.

Theory: Fine as long as there's an actual abuse (AKA trigger warning theory is great). My threshold for responses for frivolous theory is pretty low, but I will evaluate it. Theory doesn't have to be responded to in 2nd case if you're trying to keep the round substance.

Kritiks: Go for it, just explain everything clearly to me as I don't have much experience evaluating Ks

Speaks:I default to whatever the tournament tells me for speaker points. These will likely be decided based on a mixture of how well you speak, strategy and content. I love love love a good speaking style, but I can handle speed. If you're funny, I'll like you more and will probably boost your speaks. Don't spread and send a speech doc if I or anyone else in the round asks (this is an accessibility thing).

Cards:NSDA rules say that you must give author last name and last two digits of the year with every card, please do this (AKA Smith '22). I shouldn't need to say this, but cut your cards and have them readily accessible to be called. Paraphrasing is fine as long as the card is cut when called for. I will only call for cards if they are essential to my decision or you tell me to call for them during a speech.

Framing/Weighing:I default util but I think util is boring so please give me something else (well run intervening actors/structural violence weighing is my favourite). Weighing must be comparative, so metaweigh. If your opponent runs a framework, you don't need to respond in 2nd case, responding in rebuttal is fine unless they give me a reason that waiting to respond isn't okay. I don't care about money or economic impacts in a vacuum, give me a terminalized impact.

Cross:I won't flow cross, but being able to handle yourself well in cross impacts my perception of you and probably your speaks. Cross is binding, but you have to bring anything you want on the flow into a speech.

Summary/FF:The obvious stuff like no new responses past 2nd summary, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final applies. Defense is sticky. Don't give me blippy extensions, actually walk me through your link chain (I should be able to just watch summary/FF and write a ballot off of that) Please please please collapse, it makes everyone's lives easier.

Pradeep Pithumani Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Sophia Polley-Fisanich Edina High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 28, 2022 at 7:37 AM EDT

The state of PF has compelled me to do the unthinkable — write an actual paradigm. Here we go!

I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 3 years in PF.

I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF A DOC.Read fewer arguments, don't try to dump your way out of clash.

NEW WARRANTS ARE NEW ARGUMENTS. If your argument didn't have a warrant or an impact in rebuttal, I will evaluate it without one, even if it newly appears in summary or (god forbid) final focus. That being said, GOOD WARRANTS > UNWARRANTED EVIDENCE.

RESOLVE THE WEIGHING DEBATE. If nobody tells me definitively which impact is more important I will decide based on vibes. This is probably a BAD THING for you. I really like pre-requisite and short-circuit analysis — if you don't butcher it I'll probably vote off of it.

Ks ARE GREAT, THEORY BETTER NOT SUCK. To be fair, your K better not suck either. I have fairly significant experience with K debate, but definitely make my role as a judge clear in your advocacy. If you run a frivolous or weirdly nit-picky shell in front of me, the best-case scenario for you is an LPW. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad whatever. I don't really care about niche theory jargon; "paraphrasing is bad for X reasons" is the same thing as "A IS THE INTERP HEWJKHFJQKHJK" to me.

I AM LITERALLY BEGGING YOU ON MY HANDS AND KNEES TO COLLAPSE. I won't hack against you if you don't, but I will definitely assume that you hate me and want me to suffer if you extend 5 args in the back-half.

BE SILLY AND GOOFY AND HAVE FUN. Having a toxic, venomous round is such a headache. We will all feel better if you chill. To my guys and dudes specifically, bulldozing female debaters in cross isn’t a slam dunk. It makes you look like a loser.

DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Sophia Polley-Fisanich) and my email is sophia43762@gmail.com (don't put me on the email chain tho).

Sheila Qi Richard Montgomery High School 6 rounds

Ke Ren Poolesville High School 6 rounds

Ana Ria Princeton Independent 2 rounds

Manish Roongta Centennial HS 2 rounds

Eshal Sandhu Southlake Carroll 4 rounds

Srikar Tirumala Satish Scarsdale High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Gavin Serr Park City 2 rounds

Chirayu Shah Bergen County Independent 2 rounds

McKenna Shaw St. Paul Academy and Summit School 6 rounds

Alina Shivji Charlotte Latin School 4 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.

Will Sjostrom Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 7:56 AM EDT

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

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, defense is not sticky

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. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

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.

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.

Sathiyandrakumar Srinivasan Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

Hannah Stafford The Blake School 6 rounds

Pankaj Sud Ardrey Kell High School 2 rounds

Malvika Suri Mira Loma High School 4 rounds

Kate Totz The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:15 AM CDT

—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)

Tammy Trout McIntyre East Ridge High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 1:51 PM CDT

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them. Tell me your story.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2023? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

Christian Vasquez The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 6:33 PM CDT

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Decartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

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

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@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)” 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.

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. 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.

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.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

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 pomo tradition/understanding. 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 okay(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.

Ram Viswanathan Sidwell Independent 2 rounds

Minfen Wang East Ridge High School 2 rounds

Shujuan Yuan Independent Hamilton High School 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Mid America Cup

2022 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges