Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

• Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
• Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
• Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

• Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
• Setting up your podium/stand.
• Putting your flows in order.
• Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

I’m more of a policy maker judge. I prefer to see good policy passed and i want it to be reasonable. Ks are ok for Cx and i like to see a civil round.

CPFL

I like big impacts and critical arguments. I need the impact to have a realistic logic chain and to heavy link. Make sure you do impact calc in your closing speeches and to tell me where to vote. 

Competencies / Paradigm:

The quick version of my paradigm: Argue using whatever method / style you do best, but also be respectful of your competitors and what they are comfortable with.

I have experience participating in college parli debate, some college policy debate, and a few other competitive forensic activities. I have experience judging most forms of competitive debate, and if I am unfamiliar with the structure or new to judging the format, I will let you know at the top of the round.

Delievery:

I am comfortable flowing speed, but PLEASE use clear signposts. Persuasive tone and candor is important and might sway me in a close round, but is certainly not a decision-maker in and of itself. TBH I probably wouldn't knock you for swearing if it happens, unless it is a personal attack on your competitors.

Evidence: My predisposition is to value critical engagement with evidence, and I expect competitors to be clear about what their sources say as opposed to their extrapolations on a given warrant. I tend to reward teams that actively engage with their opponents evidence, including source information and qualifications.

Theory + topicality:

I am a little rusty on flowing theory / topicality, so please make an effort to be clear. I prefer in-round impacts as opposed to theoretical impacts, but will vote on the best argument regardless. Similarly, while I understand the strategic value of throw-away t-shells and will flow them the same as I flow anything else, I do have a relatively low threshold for abuse with these.

Critical Arguments: I am comfortable flowing K's just be clear about signposting. I'm a bit rusty on the literature, please try to be specific, insightful, and overall clear about K's when you run them. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is important to me, for both “policy” and “K” centered arguments.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

I am a University of Wyoming CPFL judge. This is my first semester judging. I am currently taking a Persuasive Argumentation course on how CPFL debate works that focuses on preparing me to judge. 

Competitors should follow standard CPFL procedures, which means debate should be focused on the resolution, not plans (specific policy-based examples of the resolution). Debaters should be cautious about introducing arguments which are overly technical, like counterplans, kritiks, or topicality (unless topicality is especially warranted), though I will consider evaluating opportunity costs if they are well-established.

CPFL debaters should share their evidence before speeches so that competitors can review evidence without wasting time later. 

Name: Jeff Geers

School Affiliation: University of Dayton

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Extemporaneous Debate, Policy

What is your current occupation? Instructor, Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery - I like to hear a dynamic, energetic speaking style, but this isn't an auctioneer tryout; take your time and clearly present your points

Flowing/Note-Taking - While I might be flowing your argument in my notes, I'm listening for the clash of opposing 'big ideas' - My final decision in the round is based more on who convinced me overall, not whether any one specific point was addressed or not.

Do you value Argument over Style, Style over Argument or Argument and Style equally? Both are important, but in the end a clear, cogent argument will win out over charismatic but superficial debating.

I value creativity in critical thinking, and like to see new and different approaches to issues. However, squirrel-y attempts to trap opponents with non-topical distractions put me in a bad mood...

I am an economist and a policymaker, so I am most swayed by evidence that the arguments or plans proposed will do the greatest good to achieve the aims you propose. I am not tabula rasa. I base my evaluation of your arguments on whether they are factual as well as how well your logic is tied to your conclusions. One thing I have seen from a lot of students is a propensity to make as many arguments as possible to win on weight. In general, I have found that most debates I have judged tend to come down to a few major arguments rather than the sum of the two arguments. Often, if your most important effects really matter, I don't care about minor ones. Still include them because they may help win a close debate but know that a small increase in the price of oil will not beat nuclear war in a head to head comparison.

Most importantly, have fun!

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

PUBLIC FORUM

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

PARLI

Do not ask if I am familiar with material before a round because I will most likely not answer. The following breaks down categories of Parli that you may have specific concerns about to help you find your answer. If your question is not answered here (and it is NOT about material), you are welcome to ask me about it before a round starts.

Types of Debate: It is my belief that there are three fundamental resolution styles in Parli: policy, value, and fact. Make sure you are aware of which resolution you are working towards in a round. If there is a dispute on this during the round, please make sure to address it during the round and not ignore it.

Policy: Policy should be fun, engaging, and the most creative format of Parli that we can debate on. I value strong fundamental set-ups for plans (i.e. AFF should have a clear and engaging inherency/problem). I also find it important to express creativity in this style. Being able to execute creative plans (even if they seem realistically ridiculous) is always interesting to watch from my perspective and will engage me more with your speeches. Of course, strong fundamentals and a clear understanding of the style/resolution is crucial. If "creativity" means you have weaker overall debating, then avoid it and stick to what works for you. I will always prioritize strong fundamentals. All tactics (i.e. CPs, perms, PICs, Ks, topicalities, etc.) are welcome for both sides. If you feel like you are being excluded via speed or that their plan is especially niche in its application, then express that during your speeches properly and I will flow it. I will probably be familiar with most of the literature (if you are using any) during these tactics, but that does not mean you should neglect it or skim by it. I am a firm believer in flowing only what I hear during the round and if I do not hear you properly explain something to me, then I will not flesh it out for you.

Value: Make sure to have your own value or I will assume you are working under AFF framework. If AFF does not have a value, then I will work under NEG framework. If no one gives me a value, then I will go with whatever framework has been presented during the round at all. The idea here is that we do not need to come to a consensus for a framework as you would normally in a policy round. Simply achieve your value best and (bonus points) try to show why you are ALSO achieving your opponents' value better than them. This is your time to really hone in on niche arguments and incorporate some aspects of philosophy that touch on moral or philosophical issues. For instance, human lives may/may not be the best impact here, so be creative with how your arguments work UNDER YOUR FRAMEWORK.

Fact: This is a simple fact-oriented debate. I do NOT weigh rounds based on quantity of factual material, but will weight based on quality. Of course, just having one good statistic is not going to win the round for you, but do not expect to just pour out a bunch of facts on me without proper explanation of what they mean and why they matter and expect to win. Treat this round as classic debate without bells or whistles and just try to win the round via strong warranting and impacting.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

NOTE: Effective use of Kanye West, J. Cole, and/or Frank Ocean lyrics will be rewarded with a bump in speaker points ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 points.

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

Updated for Blue Key

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

Background

I did 4 years of PF for Cypress Bay High School

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

CX/LD:

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

PF:

General

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

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

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

Case/Rebuttal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive Overviews

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

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

Summary/Final Focus

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence

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

Crossfire

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Some Pet Peeves that might make me like you less

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

Taking time to preflow when the round should have already started

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

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

How to lose

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

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

cheat

She/They pronouns please!

Last updated for the Holiday Classic

Add me to the email chain - MeliaLever@gmail.com

Don’t ask me if I’m ready, ill tell you if I’m not.

All debate summary

This is your show and run it how you want. Don’t be problematic in in round. If you are I'll vote you down independent of the rest of the debate, that’s about as much judge intervention I'll ever do. Tell me why you win the debate at the end. Lots of impact calc, lots of judge instruction. I don't like to do work for either side but will if I'm not given anything by the debaters. Ill vote for K affs if they’re topic specific and there's warrants as to why the K aff should be allowed.

Tech over Truth

Any reference to Brian David Gilbert and his series on polygon, "unraveled", or Dimension 20 fantasy high will make me like you more.

The winner gets a 30 for speaks and the loser gets the closest value to 30 the tournament will let me assign.

CX - This is my main event. I know the most about it (tech wise) and can track anything you read. I'm good on speed, dont go 100% online. Don’t assume I know the topic. Meaning with T debates you should spend some time explaining why the aff isn't topical.

Counterplans

Condo is the only reason to reject a team, all other theory arguments (assuming you win them) are reasons to make the argument go away

K’s

The bar for a K is high, but not impossible to reach. If your opponents drop arguments or just ignore it then it’s the same as every other dropped argument so long as its properly extended. Otherwise, lots of work needs to go into the alt debate to explain to me why it does solve. I’m compelled by the argument that “discourse does nothing” so if you’re alt is “reject the aff and talk about the problem” that’s gonna be a hard debate to win (assuming the aff has the evidence). But if the alt results in material action in the world (I.E., revolution to overthrow a capitalist system), then it’s easier for me to vote on. Mindset K's are also a hard one for me to vote on. I struggle to believe that reading the K in front of just the room will eventually spillover to the rest of the world.

K aff's need to relate to the topic, otherwise the threshold for T is low. So long as you relate to the topic and can explain how (even if its tangentially) then I'm willing to vote for you.

For both I would also prefer if you kept the K’s away from broad, overreaching topics and narrowed it down to the nitty gritty of the debate. I understand that’s not always possible, but the more you explain the links, impacts, etc. then the easier it is for me to vote on.

PF and LD

I have judged these debates but know very little about them. I’m not totally sure how either works, or the theory behind arguments. You shouldn’t treat me as a lay judge, but don’t assume I’m going to be the single greatest judge you’ve ever had either. I know and understand debate. Lots of what I said for policy applies. Make sure you extend arguments, explain warrants, etc. Otherwise, you can do whatever.

Toni Nielson

Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)

Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5

Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com

I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.

Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.

Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.

Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!.

Hi folks - my pronouns are She/Her and you can call me Hunter.

I got my undergraduate degree in communication from California State University, Fresno, and I'm currently finishing my MA in communication studies at California State University, Northridge, where I worked as a teaching associate and helped coach forensics from Fall 2020 to Spring 2022.

I debated open policy for Fresno State and was a K debater. Although my partner and I primarily ran fem theory arguments, I'm familiar with both critical and policy arguments and will vote for either. I have experience coaching and judging LD in Fall 2020/Spring 2021 as well as IPDA Fall 2020/Spring 2021 and CPFL Fall 2021/Spring 2022/Fall 2022/Spring 2023 for CSUN and will be coaching CPFL and judging for Fresno City starting in Fall of 2023.

In general, signposting during speeches should be clear (especially via a digital platform). I trust that you all can manage your own speech + prep time. I do flow the rounds + CX regardless of whether it's IPDA debate, policy debate, public forum, etc.

Also, I tend to have a pretty straight face during the round and will likely be looking at my flow sheet on my laptop and not at the monitor where my cam is if things occur virtually. Don't take my facial expressions (or lack thereof) as any indication of my thoughts on the round. I'm just focused on flowing your arguments. The same goes for in-person rounds.

Some additional important info:

I think how you treat one another in round is important. There's a difference between confidence in your arguments and being disrespectful to another competitor. That being said, just be respectful to each other. Policy debate (and debate in general -- LD, IPDA, PoFo/CPFL, etc.) is stressful enough as is; no one needs to add to that stress by being rude, disrespectful, etc. Also, I won't tolerate anything discriminatory. What you say + how you say it matters.

My email is huntsans03@gmail.com and I would prefer to be on the email chain. Also, please use an email chain and not speech drop.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Please send your speech docs to me and the other team. It makes flowing easier via a digital platform and evidence exchange is good practice (it's also encouraged in the CPFL Policies and Procedures under section 3.4 Evidence Exchange Expectations).

Speed of Delivery: I do not think public forum debaters should be spreading like policy. You can speak quickly or with a sense of urgency, but I think part of the emphasis of public forum is its accessibility for a variety of experience levels. As such, the rate of delivery can be quick but should allow the judge(s)/audience members to follow along without extensive debate experience.

Timing: You should time yourself. I'd encourage you to time all the speeches, truthfully. It'll help the round stay on track (and the tournament as a whole) if we're efficient with our time together in round.

Evidence: You should cite your evidence adequately and clearly according to the CPFL Policies and Procedures Evidence Norms and Evidence Exchange Expectations (available here: https://www.collegepublicforum.org/procedures). I would prefer a bit more than the author name and year of publication (perhaps a quick statement of author credentials), but I know time is short so at the very least have name/year. Please, please, please cite your evidence. I'm all for analytic arguments, but they should not make up the bulk of your speech time in the constructive and/or rebuttal speeches. Incorporate evidence and cite it throughout the round. During the summary and final focus, cross-apply earlier evidence to your arguments ("[insert argument]. This is supported by [recap earlier evidence].")

Argument + Style: Style is important, but I weigh the quality and content of the argument over style. Additionally, no new arguments in the final focus, and, personally, I don't think new arguments should really be introduced in the summary unless they are a direct response to a rebuttal claim and include evidence.

Flowing: I think you should be flowing. Not only will it help you to keep track of your arguments in round and your ability to answer your opponents' arguments, but I think good flowing helps create good debaters who have a solid grasp of what's occurring in the round and the ability of debaters to weigh and prioritize arguments. I flow the entirety of the round, so you probably should too!

IPDA Paradigm:

Constructive speeches: Be sure to clearly state and cite your definitions, judging or value criterion, and sources throughout the round. If you plan on offering a counter definition(s), do so clearly and don't abandon your framing after the constructive speeches. Also be clear when stating your contentions.

Cross-Examination: This is a question and answer period, not a speech. Be clear, concise, and strategic with your questions. If you turn CX into a speech it will likely affect your speaker points.

Rebuttals: Clearly identify why you are winning the round, how you are ahead on the flow, why your framing/definitions or judging criteria are preferable, etc. You should be able to isolate one to two key reasons why you are winning the round and impact them out during these speeches + state why they are preferable to your opponent's case.

Timing: Keep track of your own speech times. I will roughly gauge the times, but you should hold yourself and your opponent accountable. If I notice that someone seems to be going over time or not timing accurately, I will step in but I'd rather not have to interrupt anyone :)

Flowing: See above in my PoFo description^

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Aff: I'm game for policy or critical affirmatives so long as you can defend them, but you shouldn't abandon your aff position after the 1AC. Run what you want, defend it, and don't abandon your case flow.

T: I think affirmatives should at least be related to the topic on some level or another. That being said, I'm all for persuasive arguments as to what is vs. isn't topical. I'm not a super strong proponent of strict, policy T shells. As long as the aff can justify why they are in the direction of the topic, I'll usually grant the interp.

FW: I'm down for FW, but it should be specific. Vague framework shells that are a stretch at applying to the aff aren't very persuasive (i.e., general "K's bad" FW shells probably won't win my ballot). However, substantive framework debates about why I should view the round a certain way are great.

DAs: Good, a pivotal part of policy debate, especially for novices. I'll vote for a disad, but be sure to explain how they link to the aff.

CPs: Same thing as DAs. I think CPs are a pivotal part of policy debate, especially for novices. CPs should have a net benefit + at least solve part of the aff.

Ks: Love critical arguments (both on the aff and the neg). However, if you run a K strictly for strat and I can tell you don't know the argument, that isn't super persuasive in my mind. If you're going to run a K, know it well. If you run a K on the neg, be able to articulate the links and the alternative. If you run a critical aff, you should be prepared to answer T/FW and be able to articulate the world of the affirmative if you win the ballot + how the aff advocacy solves.

7+ years of speech and debate experience: 3 years as a student competitor and 4 years as an adjudicator. Primary expertise is in Parli, PF, and limited prep IEs. More background info below.

Contact emails: lilton1002@unm.edu or synchronizedspectacle11295@onmail.com (you can choose either)

Judging Philosophies:

• Organization and structure are essential. I flow what I hear. If you are not clearly outlining where you are or where you are going, I will more than likely lose some of the substance of your case. Roadmap and signpost in harmony.

• I value clash. Even if you have to go out on a limb, I would rather see you play a strong offense than a strong defense. To be sure, both elements are important and I expect to see you use both of them, but illustrating how your opponent's arguments are invalid packs a captivatingly effective punch.

• I weight anecdotal evidence equally with empirical evidence, if not more so. Anyone can find and read an NPR article. Not everyone can synthesize information from that and analytically connect that with knowledge from previous experience in a constructive, logical manner.

•Include clear, concise, and well-defined voting issues.The final speeches of the debate round should provide closure like a confident punctuation mark. You have presented your case, you have defended it, and now it is time to justify it against your opposition. Never underestimate how a strong conclusion can influence the fate of the round.

•I am skeptical of topicality/technical debate.The best debates for me, both as a competitor and an adjudicator, are those that are grounded entirely upon the exchange and challenge of ideas. I will listen to, and potentially accept, whatever you have to offer, but I feel that debate is less enjoyable for everyone when we get bogged down by jargon and game-playing mentalities instead of keeping the discourse concentrated on educational substantiveness.

•Don't be afraid to be subversive.I am very much appreciative of unorthodox, out-of-left-field argumentative approaches if/when they are executed intelligently. If you want to argue something like "the end of the world is net beneficial," I would be glad to hear you out!

•For Parli debaters specifically, please define all relevant terms - especially your House. I do not like when debates are over before they ever really began. It is underappreciated how critical it is to provide context for why this debate is taking place and who this debate is oriented towards. If the affirmative side leaves this information ambiguous, the opposition almost wins by default because they would have control over the framework of the debate round if they take the initiative.

•Presentational charisma is a plus.This is not a major priority for me and, it is not something I will really judge on outside of an in-person context, but it is nice to see certain elements in your delivery. These elements are mainly subtle cues like strategically-placed passionate vocal climaxes, hand gestures, and other speech comm niche potpourri.

•Be civil, be kind, be inclusive.We are all here to build each other up, not tear one another down.

Backround Info [Expanded]:

My forensics experience dates back to 2016. I competed with Owensboro Community and Technical College through my graduation in 2018. During the 2017 - 2018 academic year, I received the Harlan Hamm Award for Outstanding Male Competitor at the Kentucky Forensics Association's annual state tournament. From 2019 - 2020, I competed with Missouri Valley College. Since then, I have served as an assistant coach with their debate and forensics team and have adjudicated several virtual format tournaments. The crown centerpiece of my experience to date has been judging at 2022 Pi Kappa Delta Nationals.

*This paradigm is subject to revision at any time. I may add or remove philosophies at my discretion as my adjudication experience continues to evolve.

I am a University of Wyoming CPFL judge. This is my first semester judging. I am currently taking a Persuasive Argumentation course on how CPFL debate works that focuses on preparing me to judge. 

Competitors should follow standard CPFL procedures, which means debate should be focused on the resolution, not plans (specific policy-based examples of the resolution). Debaters should be cautious about introducing arguments which are overly technical, like counterplans, kritiks, or topicality (unless topicality is especially warranted), though I will consider evaluating opportunity costs if they are well-established.

CPFL debaters should share their evidence before speeches so that competitors can review evidence without wasting time later. 

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

High School and College experience was mostly in Speech. Judging experience in Speech and Mock Trial/Moot Court. Relatively new CPFL debate, currently in my second year.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Speed of Delivery: The goal for the speaker should be to persuade the audience; this can't be done if the audience can't understand what is being said. If you have a very rapid delivery, it is probably best to provide a copy of the speech so everyone can follow along.

Timing: I don't like interrupting speakers, and I don't like being the police officer. The judge's job is to follow the arguments and provide good feedback. This is complicated when the judge must also enforce the rules. Speakers are aware of the time constraints and should hold themselves accountable. If you go a little over time, I will take your attempt to seek unfair advantage into my judging. If I have to stop you, that is a very bad sign.

Pacing: My preference is that transitions between speakers or rounds are brisk. If it becomes apparent that a side is attempting to slow transitions to gain an advantage, the offending team should anticipate that I will evaluate them accordingly.

Evidence: Evidence is key, and should be cited well enough to make it easy to find in your packet. Expertise matters, so when choosing between pieces of evidence to support claims I prefer the ones that come from experienced professionals over opinions and editorials. Please observe the CPFL Policies and Procedures Evidence Norms and Evidence Exchange Expectations (available here: https://www.collegepublicforum.org/procedures).

Argument + Style: Quality of argument and logical progression are more important than style. Style is a tiebreaker at best. That said, style often helps with the communication of an argument.

Flowing: Effect debate means engaging the arguments of the opponents and demonstrating which is stronger. I will give as much weight or more weight to effect refutation as I will to presentation. For this reason, flow is important.

Other notes: I give points for presenting arguments the other side has a difficult time refuting. If you wait until summary or focus to present an argument, the other side can't fail to refute it. Don't expect the argument to score. That said, don't feel you must chase every argument. I tend to overweigh impact. Several insignificant arguments, even if uncontested, are less important than a well-reasoned, high-magnitude argument..