Damien Winter Middle School and Novice Invitational
2022 — La Verne, CA/US
Public forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
*Varsity Speaks I changed my paradigm to include this last season mid-tournament and I'm keeping it this season. Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.
*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.
Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/basic T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a handful of younger varsity teams. She/her.
Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.
Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.
“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.
As a result, frontline whatever you want to go for in summary in second rebuttal - first summaries, call it out if not.
If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. I don't believe in the trend of judges I've seen that get upset at the team asking for cards rather than the team that can't produce the cards they just read. It's your stuff, you either have it or don't.
If it's in final focus, it better be in summary.
Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.
Messy debates make me sad. I think cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.
I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."
I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.
Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating it. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.
I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.
All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).
I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.
If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago.
Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.
On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF just fine, but if it's anything that resembles spreading in another event, I'm not your best bet.
Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.
Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.
Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.
Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.
If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have about a year and a half of collegiate debate experience and about two years of judging debate at the collegiate, high school, and middle school level. I am a senior Kinesiology major who is planning on attending law school in the Fall. I am familiar with medical terms and certain legal jargon if debaters would like to incorporate that in.
I am pretty flexible when it comes to what type of debate the debaters would like to have, but I like clear & creative arguments. I am familiar with Kritiks, but I am not the biggest fan of them. Just like K's, spreading is okay if needed, but I am not a fan. I am big on flowing everything.If I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. I will say "clear" or "speed" if I cannot understand what you're saying.
I very much prefer that the debaters tell me what paradigm/ lens to judge the debate from and why, but it is not necessary. If. you tell me how to vote and why, I am more likely to be convinced by that rather than you leaving it up to me. I also appreciate any logical arguments made. I am very open with whatever the debaters want to run, as long as it is respectful and they keep everyone in the loop. I will vote on anything if you explain why your impacts outweigh. Contextualize interpt of the round; I do not want to have to guess for you.
Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (middle school and novice).
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.
Speed is fine but don't full on spread.
Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If you are doing something wrong I'll make it very apparent that I am annoyed. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.
To save time, please try and set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a card they just "read" in their speech and like ????. You either got the card or you don't so let's just not make this into an issue.
If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.
Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.
SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.
Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.
Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.
I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.
PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.
I'm good with paraphrasing cards and whatnot but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.
Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Its just odd and it makes the round messy.
If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. If you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.
For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad or like an experienced lay.
I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.
If I look annoyed, I'm probably just tired unless you are doing something wrong.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)