Melissa ONLINE TFA
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
PF Judge Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Grand Oaks '22
Hello! My pronouns are she/her. I primarily have experience in World Schools Debate, but I have also competed and judged Public Forum, Extemp, Lincoln Douglas, and some speech events.
The main thing I look for in a debate round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic; don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round.
In general for debate events, I am not the hugest fan of spreading (I probably won’t be able to flow your arguments well) so please do not speak too insanely fast— conversational speed is most preferred. As a previous third speaker in WSD, I LOVE when people weigh their arguments so please utilize weighing mechanisms in the round! If you do it well, you probably will win.
For World Schools specifically:
Don’t bombard a speaker with POIs to the point they cannot provide adequate argumentation. Don’t ask another question/provide a statement right after your POI has been answered or acknowledged by the opponent UNLESS you have been accepted for a follow-up. If your POI hasn’t been answered or even acknowledged for more than 20 seconds, please sit down. You’re only wasting time you could use for flowing at that point.
Structure: If you haven’t practiced your speech as a first speaker or done mock rounds, it’s clear as day in your timing. I want definitions, burdens, first and second substantive, and a foundation for framing in first speeches. As a first opp, I think it is more strategic to refute then introduce the case but it also depends on how lengthy your case is, so be smart with timing and strategy. Second speakers should always refute and then introduce the third substantive! I believe the third speech should ultimately convince me to vote for your side— no new arguments, have good organization, and please weigh both worlds. I usually make my decision by the third speeches and will not flow the replies.
Argumentation: I don’t like fallacies. I don’t like over-exaggerations. I don’t like straw-manning. Focus on the stakeholders, impacts, and be smart about how you frame the debate.
You can email me if you have any questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly. Also I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!
Kempner '20 | Stanford '24
or just facebook message me
4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice
***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>
dec '22 update:
Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards
Updates as of Jan '22 topic
- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)
- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.
-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)
- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)
- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here
- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.
- Debate is a game so tech>truth
- Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- if i look confused, i probably am
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
- For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
- do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont do "extend our link"
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
- Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it
- there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
- Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
- Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
- I will vote for one team and one team only
- I will evaluate theory
- Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
- Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
- if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
- Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
- I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
- I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.
- i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
- K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
- at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
- Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.
- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
- This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
- Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech
- From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
- if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
- I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)
- im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
- if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important
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: email@example.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!
Hi there! My name is Lizzie Galassini. I debate all four years in high school. I competed in congress, extemp, and WSD in high school. I am also well versed in PF and LD:
As a judge I flow the round. I want everything clearly extended throughout the round, if it isn't, I view it as a dropped argument. Tell me how to judge and why I should vote for you. I'll believe most arguments as long as they are well warranted. Be respectful of each other. Passion is ok, just don't do it in a disrespectful way.
I want to clearly understand what you are arguing, this starts out in your first speech when you present your contentions. If the case is organized, it makes the round SO MUCH easier to judge. Even though evidence isn't as important in worlds, please please please do not make really out of the box claims. Towards the end of the round I want a good amount of analysis on the principal and practical aspects of the round, this is what separates a good worlds round from an amazing worlds round. Finally, I judge worlds as it should be judged; this means that it is possible to win the flow, yet still lose the round.
PF and LD:
I'm very traditional in both of these events. I've judged and competed in these events, so I do understand both these events clearly. I do not need to be on an email chain unless you are going to spread. I personally think these are both very straight forward debates. Just be polite to your opponent and make sure to weigh at the end.
PLEASE HAVE YOUR EVIDENCE READY!!!!
None really here. Give me a good amount of sources. If you want time signals, ask for them or I won't give them. This is something I was taught as an extemper and I stick to.
This was my favorite event as a competitor, so please don't ruin that for me. If you are giving the authorship give a good understanding of what the bill/resolution is and why it should or shouldn't pass. I know people are hesitant to give authorships, but they are so important!! If you do it well I will rank you high. If you're doing a crystal I don't want to hear the same arguments over and over, bring in new reasons why or why not to pass or fail. If you speak later I really want to see clash. This keeps the debate lively. Instead of repeating the same arguments over and over I would encourage you to move to previous questions and just to the next bill. You will not rank high if you keep bringing up the same points over and over.
Stay engaged. Participate in Questioning. I do take into account how active you are in the chamber. A involved chamber leads to a really exciting round!!
This is Congressional DEBATE!!! Don't just give me a good presentation but good argumentation.
PO: I will rank you high as long as no one is having to call you out and you're running a good chamber. I know this job is hard, but you are so important.
I really do enjoy debate. At the end of the day you should too!! Have fun and show me what you've got!
Hello! My name is Jorge Gomez and I am a Speech and Debate coach who considers these events as a powerful and natural expression of human emotions and thoughts. When it comes to debate, please consider the delivery of your speech. If we, the audience, cannot understand or hear your points and evidence then already we are starting off with a rocky foundation. At the same time, speed is a natural thing in a timed setting. I understand if you have to say your arguments at a quick pace. I'm just not comfortable with someone speaking as fast as super humanely possible. There is a line that you should consider. Quality arguments and weighing them are always stronger than listing countless cards without much weighing or explanation. Signposting is always welcome in your speeches as it helps with the flow of the debate. Consider time limits...going over grace periods could cost points. And most importantly...please be respectful during all events which includes speech, in between rounds and different speakers.
Add me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hey y'all! My name is Zach Harnden, and I did Public Forum debate at Dowling Catholic High School. I have won 4 state titles, qualified to National Tournament 3 times, and I now debate for Simpson College in Parlimentary Debate and Public Forum. I am majoring in Political Science and minoring and Economics. I love football, fishing, and Arnold Palmer.
TLDR; Debate should be fun and educational. If it's neither of those, I probably won't be engaged.
-I’m good with both lay and tech.
-If your evidence is important to my decision, I'll ask for it, but otherwise, just don’t paraphrase
-Keep track of your own time, if you abuse it, I’ll doc you.
Theory: I never ran it, and I'd probably prefer you debate the topic. But hell, if you think there is an egregious violation of your rights going on in the debate, then you'd better be running or at least mentioning theory.
Online: IDC about cameras, just make sure I can hear you. My camera will be off, and I will be flowing. I am ready, so don’t ask. :)
I’ll give the most speaks to the best speaker, but if that’s not good enough for ya, then here:
If you make proper and funny references to any of the following I will give you auto 30 speaks.
-Roasting Christopher Pierson
if you don't use any prep
Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.
NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.
THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.
THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.
For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.
Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.
Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.
Hi! My name is Aleena Joseph and I am a freshman at Texas A&M University. In high school, I was an avid speech and debate competitor, particularly in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Public Forum, Dramatic Interpretation, and Humorous Interpretation. I was strongest in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking as a 2-time state qualifier for both, and a national tournament qualifier and attendee for Oratory. I competed heavily in Public Forum in my sophomore year and judged novice rounds in my senior year. My experience levels would match a flay judge, so I highly recommend articulating your arguments thoroughly. The easier it is for me to understand your arguments, the better your speaker points will likely be. I also critique your speaking heavily, so try your best to speak clearly with articulation and tone.
Basic Things I Appreciate In a Round (Debate)
- Good articulation and overall outstanding speaking
- Simple Termed Arguments
- Overall respect for each other. I do NOT tolerate mansplaining or any other disrespect in the round.
- WEIGHING IS SO IMPORTANT. I need to be convinced that your argument is the best for society as a whole.
- Have fun! I love when I see competitors having fun and enjoying their rounds.
- I likely will not disclose, but you can ask.
How I Judge Speech --
Good luck! I’m super excited to judge your round!
If you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at email@example.com! Thanks!
Hi there! I'm Preeth!
TLDR - I'm a fairly "flay" judge. I enjoy more realistic arguments especially when presented at a manageable and easily flowable speed, though I obviously will do my best to follow you the faster you go.
I'm not super duper familiar with the topic, so I would suggest explaining acronyms and all that good stuff!
Tech > truth - but this does NOT mean make blatantly false arguments. You should always debate well and technically WHILE making arguments that could be true.
Keep in mind that I am not involved in debate professionally - this means you should go in between "parent" speed and "best coach ever" speed.
I'll do my best to average at around a 28.5 as far as speaker points go.
I appreciate when evidence exchanges are fast - I've found that speechdrop.net works best for me (shout out to my little brother for showing me that site).
I'll do my best to disclose and give some critiques for speaking and argumentation at the end of the debate - whether this is verbally or on the ballot depends on if I'm time-crunched or not.
Good luck to both teams, and thanks for letting me judge!
I am a parent judge. Please speak at a regular pace and do not spread. Be respectful to your opponents in speaking and in the manner of time utilization.
Please do not use phrases like "you must vote in our favor".
Yes chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
College: University of Southern California
ALL: Probably don't care what you read. In college I read a USFG plan text affirmative and the DA + K on the negative. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas (read as truth > tech)
If your skimming here is what you are looking for :
I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.
Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.
KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive. I don't care how but I'm not wanting to vote on "no perms in a method v method debate".
Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate. I won't vote on the aff/neg shouldn't get to have arguments / contest the method.
Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds that I should have on ASPEC (which is a great arg...) so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.
Public Forum Debate
Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.
Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.
Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.
ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.
Flower Mound 22 | UT 26
I did speech and debate all 4 years of high school. I qualed for all the things in info and NSDA in DUO. So I am most qualified in speaking events (Info, OO, extemp), however I have some experience in most events and competed in PF at the beginning of my career.
Include me in the email email@example.com
I would say I'm a flay judge. I will be flowing and will try my best to vote off it but don't have much technical knowledge. Don't spread in PF, but I am pretty good with speed just be clear. Please signpost, I will be more likely to flow your responses.
These events are very much presentation based so mind how you carry yourself throughout the round. Also have fun in your events, it makes it more entertaining and interesting to watch you. Small fluency breaks are not the end of the world, just recover, as long as the rest of your speech is good I will weigh it all the same.
The biggest thing I look for in interp are clean pieces. Is the cutting clean so I understand what is happening in the piece? Do the transitions make the piece flow well? Is your blocking consistent and does it add to what you are saying?
TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.
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
respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal
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.
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.
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.
Please speak clear and at a medium pace. Participants to manage the clock.
Looks for clarity in arguements, promptness in rebuttals, logical prgression of thoughts while talking and in responses, and knowledge/ understanding on the subject matter.
Results and feedbacks will be posted in Tabroom.
Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!
Please make sure your cameras are turned on.
Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.
Name : Lauren Velazquez
Affiliated School: Niles North
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.
Director of Debate at Niles North
I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.
What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.
I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.
The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.
DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.
I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:
I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosopy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)
Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.
If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)
Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.
Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.
I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.
Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.
LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.
CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.