hi. i’m a public forum debater, orator, and extemper. I’m a pretty extroverted person so if you say something off track, you definitely will see my reaction and know that. At the end of each round, i will give some feedback and critiques on the round, if, of course, you want me to.

Some rules i have:

1. Let’s have fun. that’s all i want. this is a learning experience for us all so just enjoy it

2. I want everyone to have confidence in themselves, and to know that the only way to get better, is to try your hardest no matter the circumstance. never give up, because a round can be won at many different times.

3. DO NOT say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other such things. I will not tolerate it all and will lose you the round

PUBLIC FORUM:

Actual debate-y stuff I like for PF:

1. i want clear and loud case reading. i don’t care how fast, just please be legible otherwise you are going to lose
2. tell me where you are at on the flow. otherwise imma be lost and i won’t even know what you are arguing anymore. clearly tell me in this format (onto their contention 1 sub point A where they argue _____ )
3. rebuttal: if you are the first speaking team, please only attack your opponents case. if you are the second speaker team, please use about 3 ish minutes on your opponents side first, and then use the rest to respond to a few arguments the opponents made against your case.
4. summary: literally the most important speech. this makes or breaks your round if i’m being honest. clear and concise. boil it down to the main points, what is dropped and what isn’t, and use voters (main things that are the reason why you win. can really be anything)
5. final focus: really just explain to me why you won. rounds are usually won at summary, but if you tell me something really good in final focus, you might win. don’t repeat the voters back to me. i already heard them. no new evidence though
6. cross fire: this is my pet peeve. ask relevant questions please. and don’t keep pushing something that they already answered. DO NOT BE RUDE. OMG IF YOU ARE IT MAKES ME MAD PLEASE PLEASE DONT.
7. use off the clock road maps for all speeches except the constructive

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Im not the most familiar with this. I do know structure and stuff kinda of it. You will have to help me with timings and what speech is what. Things I look for in this are similar to PF, so just read above whatever you need.

I hope you guys get in the habit of reading paradigm. if you do read this, mention SpongeBob square pants to me before or after the round and i will give .5 speaker points. whoever does it first gets the extra points

Hey y'all, I was a varsity public forum debater and domestic extemper at O'Gorman and went to nationals a couple of times. I'm now currently at Vanderbilt University in Nashville (Anchor Down!!) studying Molecular Biology. Just a couple of things:

1). be confident!! (y'all got this)

2). be respectful please (especially in cross)

3). HAVE FUN (debate is meant to be fun)

If you say something that is rude or disrespectful you most likely will see it on my face and I will look up.

Overall, just have fun and have confidence and you'll be good!

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

hello I'm ariana

One thing I'm looking for is confidence in your evidence :) one thing is important don't let your nerves get to you you got this just show me in your body language you're ready to defend your case

If you are confident during your round and show me you know your case you most definitely win!

Road maps would be very useful. show me what you know

What I don't like is being rude to the other opponents and being means towards others that will make you lose the round

I am a traditional public forum debater, so don’t spread or try any Nat. Circuit methods because they won't work in PF for me. Go join Policy debate if that’s your style.

I currently debate for JHS, so I am pretty well-versed on the PF topic.

Evidence clash and warranting are essential to me, and good speaking skills will help you a lot.

LD: I had a very brief stint in LD my first year; I don't do it anymore. Treat me like a lay judge.

Good luck if you have me in LD.

Pray to god if you have me in Congress.

Do both if you have me in Policy.

Hey everyone!

I was a PF debater for 4 years, so I understand that style of debate well. As for policy and LD, I'm less experienced.

I consider myself to be a flow judge, so please make sure you signpost in your speeches or else I may not catch everything you say!

As for speeches, I'm really okay with whatever you want to do, just make sure that the FF includes where you are winning on the flow. Please give me reasons to vote for you!

PLEASE be respectful to those you are debating against! I love debate for the inclusivity, so just be a nice person!

Feel free to email me about any questions, or include me in any email chains: jaleigha.kambeitz@gmail.com

[Personal Info]

Pronouns: She/Her

I do Lincoln Douglas debate, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon for me.

Email: savannah.j.kloster@gmail.com

My ballots tend to be mainly evaluation specific to how you did in the round and I get very hyper-focused on personal comments that I usually forget to write RFDs, unless they are online ballots, then as soon as I leave the school I fill them out; If you didn’t get an RFD or need clarifications from me just email me and I will give you an RFD or the clarifications you need to the best of my abilities.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

If you know Martin Kloster, yes I am the communist’s sister

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus because that means you dropped it so I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them, if you say no and you have access to it it’ll be very sketchy (plus bad debate etiquette) and I’ll drop the card from the flow and I might ask to see the card after round

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading because it’s hard to understand what the person is saying but also don’t go too slow because it’s just as bad as spreading. My preferred speed is a moderate pace. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer. I recommend having a timer up with you so you can see how much time you have left, it makes giving speeches much easier in my opinion.

/Speaks/

Speaks for me is not only how well your speeches were but if you were actually trying and showing interest/know what you're talking about; in other words not just speaking pretty but being confident. Just for a bonus for reading my paradigm if you tie Mike Wazowski into your speech I'll give you an additional .5 speaker points.

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

experience:

-current pf debater at sf roosevelt

-2x qualifier to the TOC (won most the toc bids in the state my junior year)

-2x qualifier to nats

general:

-flow judge (tech over truth) also i try to be tabula rasa as best as i can.

-2nd rebuttal has to frontline

-2nd rebuttal/1st summary should collapse on one argument (collapsing does not mean dropping)

-off the clock roadmaps before speeches are really helpful and so is signposting

-weighing is super important for me; tell me why i should prefer your argument over your opponents argument

-pre-reqs, short-circuits, and link-ins are gasssss

-EMPIRICS WIN, OFFENSE WINS, WEIGHING WINS

prog:

-if u want to run theory or ks go ahead, just make sure it's understandable

-im good w tag team and flex prep

other:

if u have any questions feel free to email me at im3106@k12.sd.us

hihi i’m good with speed i’m probably like a 7/9 i did pf and ld 2 years each so i’m kinda familiar with formats

BUT i have terrible organization for rounds and i focus super hard on rebuttal. if you smoke someone in rebuttal you basically win unless u really clearly summarize points at end of round i am super lazy. mostly i prefer line by line but i’m ok with voters.

i’m more familiar with traditional debate so please explain kritiks, counterplan, theory args (i get the gist of them but please clarify)

random things:

tech > truth because i think truth judges kinda do the work for debaters sorry, but if your opponent says something blatantly wrong just give me 2 words on it like "this is untrue call for card" i will call for card and flow that through.

i said i’m good with speed BUT only do speed if u need to (not the drug lol). what i mean is dont talk fast for the sake of talking fast like “ooh i’m so good at reading args quickly oooh” like i don’t care about that, i want u to show me that you know the argument you’re running not just reading off cards. if you use speed to just try to disorient your opponent i think that’s smelly.

I am a current freshmen at the University of Minnesota pursuing a degree in Biochemistry. I have prior experience with Debate as I used to be on the Sioux Falls Roosevelt Varsity Debate team for three years.

Judging

I am open to most arguments and strategies, however, I am not big on theory and won't vote solely off theory. Feel free to speak at any speed you are comfortable with. But if you are going to read your speeches fast, please make sure that you are speaking clearly or I will be unable to flow your arguments. If you speak clearly and concisely, I will give high speaks. If you are being rude to your opponents, I will take speaker points off. I would also appreciate it if you tell me what side of the flow you'll be starting on at the beginning of your speech, as it makes it a lot easier to flow.

I will also not consider any arguments that are not flowed throughout the round; if you make a point during a rebuttal and don't flow it through the summary and final focus, then I will consider the argument dropped. New cards brought up in summary will not be considered; the third speech is a summary; refrain from making it a second rebuttal. What I'm looking for in summary is impact weighing and proving that your impact is more likely to happen, or greater in magnitude. In Final Focus, tell me your main points and what I should be voting on. Regardless of what happens, I will try and write as much feedback as possible.

With that being said, have fun, and good luck on your rounds!

I am a varsity debater at Jefferson High School and am familiar with most aspects of PF.

How I Vote

I am a flow judge and will only vote off of the arguments extended through the entire round. This means 1st speaker should extend all arguments they wish to be voted on through the summary, and these arguments should be summarized by 2nd speaker in the final focus. Any dropped arguments will not be voted on and responses from your opponents that you do not address will be counted as dropped.

Tech vs. Truth

I can go either way on this one, but lean toward truth. If you provide a very good link chain and real-world impacts I will vote on tech, but I prefer a well-structured argument and story with truthfully cut and utilized cards from strong sources.

Theory

Please don't. I come from a school with very few coaches and consider theory to be an escape from the real topical debate. The only reason I will vote for you is if your opponents don't extend their arguments.

Speed

I can flow most speeds besides spreading. Spreading is not recommended as I will not pick up on all of your arguments and therefore will have trouble voting for your impacts.

Speaker Points

30 - Excellent speaker, probably the best I have seen today.

29 -Very strong speaker, no studders, and a great grasp of the round.

28 -Above average, few studders, and a decent grasp of the round.

27 -Average speaker, responds to opponents' arguments

26 -Struggling to grasp the arguments in the round

25 -Having difficulties grasping arguments and responding to them in an understandable manner.

I'm an undergraduate student at Middlebury College where I compete on the debate team in British Parliamentary. During my high school debate career, I placed top 4 at nationals in Lincoln Douglas, and I'm a two time Lincoln Douglas state champion. I also attained state champion for United States Extemporaneous Speaking, and I competed for two years in Public Forum.

email (for chains ONLY): honeydew.kira@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

Tech > truth, I focus on the arguments made in the round. I won't make the arguments for you. I hate interfering my thoughts in the round, you should be doing the work for me.

I'm okay with speed, but don't be abusive. I can understand fast speech (probably 8/10), but I think that if you are speaking fast, you have to be making good, purposeful arguments. I'm personally not a huge fan of using it just to try to confuse your opponent.

I think this goes without saying but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Hate does not have a place in debate.

While I am not necessarily a flow judge, I still think flowing is important. If your opponent drops something, point it out and blow it up. A response that hasn't been interacted with can create an easy path to the ballot.

I want warrants for cards; don't just tell me to extend your evidence. A clearly warranted card will always mean more than telling me to prefer your article because the person who wrote attended a prestigious school. If you ever say "I don't know know, that's what the study/card says", it's probably a bad sign. Also, I mostly don't flow card names, I often miss them in constructive (unless you emphasize in later speeches) because I focus more on what you're arguing than what the source is. Thus, saying "extend Washington '22" doesn't really mean anything to me. You have to do more work than that.

Weighing and voters are never a bad thing, don't be afraid to use them.

I will read cards if you ask for me to call for them. Otherwise, I probably won't unless it is very important in the round. If you know that your opponent is misusing evidence and tell me to call for that card, I will. If I find that someone is blatantly abusing evidence, depending on the severeness, I will consider voting them down just for that.

In my opinion, debate should always be a productive space where competitors can learn and grow and thus treat their opponent with respect. If you violate this and are explicitly rude, I will be very hesitant to vote for you. Even if you are going against someone who is competing in varsity for the first time, you should treat them with kindness and respect.

I DO NOT WEIGH NEW ARGUMENTS MADE LATE IN THE ROUND. Of course, extending arguments or explaining why your original argument/response still stands is fine. I think that new arguments made past this are inherently abusive because 1. the function of those latter speeches is not to continue to make new arguments 2. it's unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond efficiently/effectively that late.

If you include a reference to K-pop in any of your speeches, I will give you +0.1 speaker points :)

I have specific comments on the types of debate I am most familiar with below, if your type of debate is not listed, please refer to general preferences above. My specific preferences ONLY apply to those types of debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm fine with K's and most other miscellaneous policy arguments as long as you can explain them and why they are preferrable to vote for in round. Don't run a Cap K and say to vote for it just because capitalism is bad. HOWEVER, I normally don't like counterplans. This is just a personal judging preference; I think it can be an unfair burden for the affirmative to have to attack a bunch of alternatives that the neg can come up with because it heavily skews the debate towards the negative (since there are tons of other things that could potentially resolve a problem). I find that they are often provided without warrants and thus not competitive. While it not abusive in all cases, I think that it often can be. Just because one alternative might be good doesn't deny that the resolution could also be beneficial to pursue; if you want to use a CP, you have to warrant why it is preferrable, not just why it can also resolve the issue. I am okay with a different option being used to show that it has higher effectiveness than the stance the aff takes as long as it is warranted. If you are just listing off a bunch of alts, that's probably a bad sign. But since it is a nuanced topic, depending on the way it's run/attacked, I might be fine with it even if you don't run it in the way I prefer. STILL, I WILL NOT VOTE YOU DOWN JUST FOR HAVING A CP. BUT if your opponent argues in the round why the CP is abusive to the burden of the affirmative (having to argue against too many random solutions, not focus of topic, etc), I am likely to buy that.

I'm a strong believer that solvency doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in Lincoln Douglas debate since it is based on morality. HOWEVER, if you are running an argument that relies on solvency (ie: the affirmative is moral because minimizing environmental harms reduces oppression), it is not something you can get around. In my opinion, some degree of solvency towards (in this example) reducing environmental harms has to be guaranteed, otherwise it doesn't make sense to vote for the affirmative without access to impacts. As long as your case doesn't revolve around solvency, you do not need to show that everything is solved for me to vote for you.

I'm also a strong believer that the job of the negative is to disprove the affirmative, not outline a counterplan or solve for the issues that affirmative outlines. How each negative debater can go about disproving the affirmative is up to the interpretations provided in the round, but the default for the negative is not to advocate for the opposite of the affirmative or solve for the aff's issues.

I will never vote someone down because they use a philosopher that committed some irrelevant harmful action/ideas. I believe that philosophy can be separated from the philosopher because, after all, philosophy is based on random bodies of thoughts on human action, not just one person. Even if Locke said or did something harmful, that doesn't change what his moral theory said or change that it has been beneficial, creating a whole body of philosophy still used in modern day. (But general criticisms are fine, just not ones saying that a philosopher said something sexist)

I absolutely LOVE value/criterion turns. If you can find a way to turn your opponent's framework, that is a wonderful way to outline your path to the ballot.

Value criterion debate is huge part of what makes Lincoln Douglas special compared to other types of debate. Please don't forget about it in the round; I am a huge fan of a well-functioning framework.

Public Forum:

WAY more than Lincoln Douglas, warranting is incredibly important for me in Public Forum. Especially if both sides have evidence which disagrees with each other, I want you to provide analysis not only on why your evidence stands more but also on why your opponent's falls. I will not do the work for you. Weighing is also incredibly important since Public Forum defaults on a cost benefit analysis framework. Thus, if one side can show me more benefits/harms it becomes far easier to vote for them.

Avoid hyper-specific topic jargon if I am in the back of your round. Although I competed in two years of Public Forum, I spent the bulk of my time involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate. While I will most likely be familiar with the basics of the topic, I will not know all of the lingo.

I outline most of the rest of my preferences in my general debate preferences, so refer back to those.

If you have questions about a specific preferences, feel free to ask me at any point.

TL:DR - Don't be abusive with evidence or make new arguments late in round. Be respectful. Use weighing/voters and warrant your evidence. Ask me to call for cards you think are abusive/need to be read. I am not a fan of using speed just to confuse your opponent.