Duquesne University Invitational
2022 — Pittsburgh, PA/US
LD Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.
If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.
Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.
Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.
Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.
Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.
Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.
If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge. I have judged public forum, Lincoln Douglas and Parli. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I am good with off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!
Email chain please! firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR: You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.
Pittsburgh Central Catholic '20 (current policy coach)
University of Pittsburgh '24 (not debating)
I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales.
I am a trained policy debater so that's usually what I judge. If I am judging you in LD or PF, please read the small note below.
Please SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading, especially in a virtual environment. I cannot physically write down every argument that you make. I also try not to look at the speech doc. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.
Some things you may want to know:
1. I am EXTREMELY skeptical of "capitalism good" arguments. If you go for them, you better do a lot of analysis to convince me.
2. Run T-USFG if you want. However, be careful if you run fairness as an impact. Fairness typically gets run in a very exclusionary/problematic way. At most, I usually see fairness as an internal link.
3. My knowledge of critical scholarship does not extend far beyond antiblackness, capitalism, and security.
4. I'm not upset by the idea of "cheating" counterplans, just have a good solvency story.
5. I don't understand the appeal of reading disease impacts in a post-COVID world.
6. I will be sad if theory is 2NR/2AR strategy. Some pre-dispositions I have: condo isn't a thing unless there's at least 3 advocacies, perf-con is under-utilized, I won't judge kick a counterplan unless the neg tells me to.
Western Pennsylvania LD and PF: I can't believe that I have to say this, but debaters really need to think through the arguments they make. What do your advocacies/arguments say about you as a debater, as a person? I am tired of hearing people repackage xenophobic statements as "arguments" for strategic purposes. If your response to this is "These are the main arguments on this topic," do better. Do more research. I don't care. But don't get up and say things like migrants will lead to an increase in terrorism and disease. Make an argument that isn't discriminatory. Before you go to a tournament, really take a minute and think about what you are saying.
Hi! I'm Matt. I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 114 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.
Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24
TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.
NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:
1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.
2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run wild things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).
3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments.
4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.
NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:
1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.
2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.
3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.
Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.
Email for chain: email@example.com
I'm currently a first-year student at the University of Pittsburgh and have 4 years of experience with LD and 3 years of experience with policy.
Since I'm no longer doing debate competitively, I won't know the topics as well as I used to. As a result, explaining niche arguments/terminology matters a bit more since I can't fill in gaps with my own knowledge of the topic.
The first priority is always making debate a fun, inclusive, educational space. Being respectful of your opponent and keeping racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc. arguments out of the round is an expectation.
On my end, I think it's important to minimize judge intervention, so I'll evaluate arguments as they appear on the flow. The implication here is that I can't extend/drop nontrivial stuff for you unless that work is done during the speech
You don't have to read everything.
Try to stay calm and have fun. In addition to fun being a good thing generally, an attitude of enjoyment will also lend itself to confidence and clear thinking.
Try hard not to get overly aggressive and resort to character attacks on anyone, whether they be opponents or political figures, except when it may be considered a direct piece of evidence to an end (for example, X does immoral things, voters don't like immoral things, so X won't get elected to Y).
Courtesy, especially professional courtesy between one another, is expected of competitors.
No personal attacks to anyone, whether they're in the room or not. At most, criticize individual arguments.
The more organized you are, the more likely I am to vote the way you expect.
If you speak so fast that I start missing things, I will not expect your opponent to have caught the small things.
I'm generally a traditional judge.
I can follow whatever philosophy you throw out there, but if it doesn't matter who wins the framework debate, just say so and feel free to ignore it.
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a fourth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s.
For LD circuit debate - I have judged a lot of traditional LD, but I’m still getting used to circuit. It’s in your best interest to give me signposts - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. Make sure I know where you are in the flow. I prefer a slower debate style where I can at least distinguish the words you are speaking.
For Parliamentary Debate - I have judged Parli and will choose a winner based on which team best supports their side on the opinion. I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. I am tech over truth. There’s never a bad side of the motion. Argue what you’re comfortable with and make it an interesting round. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. You should tell me which issues are the most important and why you win those issues. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!
For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:
1. I prefer no spreading. If you must spread, you should hope I can keep up. Use taglines, signposts, road maps - anything that helps me follow. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them. However, I am very flow judge and I will always be tech over truth.
2. Please be respectful to your opponent during cross. You’re debating, not bullying or belittling. You can be better than that. Your behavior will be reflected in your speaker points.
3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case) In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always still have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.
4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.
5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.
Good luck and have fun! Debate should be educational and fair.