CFL Parli and PF
2022 — San Jose, CA/US
JV PUFO Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideNew to judging. All argument is valid as long as the argument is justified. Show your evidence clearly.
Enjoy, it will show on your delivery!
hi! i'm sky.
please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.
email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.
please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.
tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.
don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.
now, specifics!
topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.
cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.
evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
He/Him
Include me in the evidence chain if we're using one: mail@lantern.fish
If any of this is confusing, ask me before the round and I'll explain.
Background:
Former PF debater with Nueva. Flow judge but my flowing skills were never that great - I'll follow your complicated arguments as long as you signpost your way through them.
It is my belief that debate is a game which we engage with to better ourselves through the mechanisms of competition, collaboration, inquiry, and improvisation.
Procedural Preferences:
Prefer if you don't call me "judge". Generally - it's my opinion that the speeches don't actually need to address a specific person (the judge), but instead should be given as if given to a public forum (hah, imagine that). If you want, you can just call me Liam though.
I can track relatively quick speech, but anything quick risks getting muddied on the flow - if you're way too fast for me to understand I'll call "clear".
All offense in final focus wants to be in a summary - ideally this means extended specific cards as well. No new offense in rebuttals (unless it links out of opponents case: turns, etc.). The whole offensive overview situation is pretty ambitious these days IMO - but I understand it's allowed as a convention. I feel like it crosses a line when there's new terminalization in an offensive overview read at the top of rebuttal that doesn't link out of internalized link turns on the opponents case.
I flow your summary entirely on your sheet in a new column - this shouldn't effect you unless you don't signpost your points and just read down the opponents flows when defending during summary (voters based summary speeches are sick).
Cross-X is for y'all not me. I won't flow it. Use it to understand the other case and bring any cool epiphanies into the actual speeches.
Round Interpretation:
The fastest path to the ballot is to weigh your terminal arguments against theirs in final focus.
I interpret Tech > Truth. This means that I will vote on an argument that I know to be factually incorrect if it isn't adequately defended.
I have no real exposure to theory, but I have no real baseline objections given that it's unlikely your opponents are any more clueless than me. Articulate it well and we'll see.
I'll call for any cards which end up affecting ballot evaluation and are contested in round. I'll also call for any cards that are blatantly absurd, but I'll only flag these if you're committing pretty egregious evidence abuse.
Good (qualified) cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics.
One of the more compelling ways to weigh your arguments in the final focus is to specifically compare the veracity of your link chain to theirs in the context of the outstanding defense - not new argumentation, but why I should prefer your link story to theirs.
Outside of extent circumstance a non-terminalized argument doesn't exist on the flow.
I'll give verbal RFDs. If you really want an in-depth written one, let me know and I'll try to write it up.
The fastest path to the ballot is to weigh your terminal arguments against theirs in final focus.
Aesthetic Bias:
I have a bias towards arguments which present bold and/or interesting perspectives on the topic. These will get my attention. Any contention which internally links through bat extinction gets a free 30 speaker points.
I have no preferences with regards to how you present yourself physically. Sit down during speeches. Wear a t-shirt. As long as everyone in the space is comfortable and I can hear you, I don't care.
Speaker Points:
My understanding of the lit is that speaker points are objectively pretty biased - often against the intentions of the judge. To mitigate this my speaker point range will be clamped to 28 to 29.5 outside of a few exceptions:
- If you're abusive during the round (reading exotic argumentation against teams that clearly aren't prepared and not accommodating, verbally aggressive during CX, pretty much any ad-hom) you might get something lower.
- If you take ages to pull up evidence or don't have it cut to the (relatively low) standards of PF you probably get lower.
- If you're violent (verbally counts) against any marginalized groups you probably get a 0. If this is blatant you probably end up dropped as well. I will not be a perfect judge of this but I think it is a necessary ex-ante responsibility of the judge role.
- Any brazenly creative arguments (fresh, spicy, innovative) can earn you a 30
- A really really clean and organized first summary can warrant a 30 - that speech is tough.
Please make sure that your arguments have logical consistency and that your presentation has integrity.
Also, presentation skills play a large part of my evaluation.
I am a parent judge, and this is my second year with debate. Consider me a flow judge.
I appreciate it when speakers talk clearly and introduce issues, and definitions or describe acronyms before using them.
Do speak confidently and in equal measure use logic and arguments to support your case.
I expect participants to be polite and courteous with the opposing team. Also, I expect participants to state what are the key facts I should consider, even when seemingly obvious. Do not assume I will credit you for a mistake of the opposing team unless you highlight it.
Good luck!