Karen Keefer Novice Invitational
2022 — Mountain View, CA/US
Novice Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideIn a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.
Hi everyone,
Nueva GC-- haven't judged a lot. I feel like I can give good evaluations but I'm also about to be a first year out so I'm probably not the best but will try I promise!! DO NOT TELL UR OPPONENTS TO CLEAR PLS its so rude and its ur job to #flow. I will clear but not YOU.
TLDR; Feel the rhythm, feel the ride. Get ready, it's spreading time! Defense is NOT STICKY. pls weigh. Ks silly, Theory less fun, go ahead and run anything under the sun.
tech> truth. I'm not voting for 30 speaks theory. If you use speech drop you're the GOAT.
Email chains) Send speech docs for every speech with new evidence and add me via kaychan@nuevaschool.org.
I am coached by THE Malcolm Davis, GOAT Gavin Serr, and fav Sky Junio so you can look at their evaluations too.
Ks and Theory) I'm familiar with some lit. I am not quite the #reader like some other Nueva K debaters, so the most I've done is read Puar, Solomon, and Foucault, though I recently read Beauchamp's "The Failure of Theories of Personhood" and it was really interesting! I am willing to vote on them if you warrant the K and why Ks are before substance. If you're reading theory make sure there's an actual violation and at least attempt to reach out so they meet the interp. But I've won off saying I'm a different team so go crazy (I love debaters who are silly and have fun!!). Debates a game but try to enjoy it!
I put safety in the round before anything else. Don't be discriminatory, racist, or violent towards anyone in round! If you have questions after round I'm more than happy to answer them in person post-ballot and via email.
Classes I would not take: AP Chem, Chem H, AP Calc BC, Trig H
Hi! I'm in my sixth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team.
I'd consider myself mostly flow/flay and generally tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments). This means I will flow the round (sans cross) and will evaluate any argument that has a clear (and carded) link chain and impact. All your evidence should be carded, but I will evaluate good analytics above bad cards.
Please time yourself and I will keep time as well. Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world and no one wants that.
Any discrimination (racism/sexism etc.) or abusive language (ad hominems etc.) will lead to the lowest speaks I can possibly give you and I will default to the other team. Please introduce yourself with your name, school, and pronouns before your round.
Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before round!
*audrey tsai paradigm !
I'm Andrew Chen and my son does LD debate. Although I don't require you to do these, it will make judging much easier and it will give you a bigger chance of winning. :-)
1. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I cannot understand you, then I simply stop flowing and you'll probably lose.
2. Don't be too aggressive, or I'll have a bad impression of you.
3. Make sure to keep eye contact with me, especially during cross examination.
4. During cross examination, do not argue. If you want my ballot, you just need to prove your side is better than the other. There is no need to yell.
5. Make sure to cite your sources, or I'll think that you made them up.
6. I allow a 10-15 second grace period for the constructive and rebuttals. For cross examination, finish your question and I will allow the other person to answer that question.
7. At the end, you need to CLEARLY tell me why your side has won.
Make sure to shake hands with each other and me at the end of each debate.
IMPORTANT: DO NOT COME LATER THAN THE STARTING TIME UNLESS THERE IS A DELAY!!!
Having a well prepared case, being organized, and following these preferences will give you the biggest chance of winning!
I WILL NOT DISCLOSE!!!
GOOD LUCK! :)
Treat me as a standard PF tech judge
Email (add me to the chain): garepishollandd@bsd405.org
Co-advisor + head coach @ Interlake
Polysci + Econ @ UW
PF @ Palo Alto 2019-23, GTOC + CA state finals in '23
See also: Fiona Li's paradigm
General
First I will evaluate the highest layer of offense that is extended in every speech after it's read
If both teams have offense in the highest layer, I will look to the fw/weighing debate and the link-level, and vote for the team has the least-mitigated link into the most important impact.
If neither team have offense left I will presume neg unless given a reason to do otherwise.
If this is a mixed panel, WA local, or novice round and you have no idea what this paradigm means, just debate how you normally do and I will adapt
Specifics
Tech > truth
Nothing is sticky. All offense/defense must be extended in every speech to be considered
These are my preferences for sending evidence: speechdrop w/ Word docs > email chain w/ word docs > full docs body of email > card requests in body of email > looking over at people's computers.This may affect your speaks although I will be more gracious about this at locals.
I would prefer if you didn't paraphrase as it is bad evidence practice.
If you want defense to be counted as terminal I would implicate it as such
High-level circuit rounds: slow down maybe 15-20% during the back half, I have been judging a lot of locals and am rusty
Second rebuttal must frontline all defense and turns at least briefly or they're considered dropped
Collapse and be clear what arguments you are going for. Avoid going for more than 1-2 pieces of offense
Prereq and link in weighing are great. Probability weighing is just link-level analysis, which is valuable but do other things as well
Please warrant things, warranted analytics > unwarranted cards. Do not respond to a warrant with only an empiric
New weighing in first FF is probably OK, but I would prefer weighing to be in summary
Prog
Theory defaults: no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, text > spirit, DTA, and theory players substance. Also I will generally err towards disclo & round reports being good, cut cards > paraphszing, OS > full text, and bracketing being bad.
(What is this/how do I respond to it? Seehere.)
Extend the interp in all speeches including rebuttal (only applies to theory not sub)
I will evaluate any theory argument – it's not up to me what is frivolous or not
Topical K: have evaluated sec, setcol, and cap
K-Aff: have evaluated queer identity, fem identity, fem-IR.
I will probably not understand tricks enough to vote for them
Anything else is new to me but I will do my best to evaluate it
hi! i'm sky.
please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.
add both emails to the chain:
if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too!
please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.
tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help everyone listening in. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.
teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).
want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).
don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule.
now, specifics!
topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.
cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.
evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read any evidence at the end of the round if asked to, if any evidence sounds too good to be true, or if any evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.
public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
Parent debater of 1 year.
Please talk slowly, I do not like "theory" or "counterplan" in PF. Please be kind! I expect a very respectful space.
go to tabroom.gay for bonus points
I am a college student. I did PF for 4 years previously.
Important points for me:
Speed: I'm okay with most speeds, but don't speak super fast and then end up with an extra minute at the end of your speech. Take your time, don't rush through it just for the sake of it. Also, please don't spread.
Timing: Please don't go over time. I will let you finish your sentence if it happens. However, if you end up going 30+ seconds over, I will stop flowing.
Crossfire: Please be polite. If you cut people off or yell at people or are just being generally really aggressive, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points. Also, please do not spend half of cross sharing your ideas.
(PF specific) Theory/Ks/Progressive Arguments: I don't prefer these. Only run if warranted by something that happens in the round.
Don't be afraid to call something out or ask questions in the middle of the round. I want everyone to be able to have fun. Good luck on your rounds!
Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)
TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.
- Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
- Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
- Send the fully cut card
- Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
- No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
- Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
- Please weigh (more detail below)
- Collapse!!
- Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
- Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail
General Preferences:
Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.
Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.
Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.
Speed:
If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.
Evidence:
Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.
I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.
Progressive arguments:
Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.
Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.
Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!