Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Please put me on the email chain: thirdnegativeconstructive@gmail.com

I have a problem with writing paradigms as I feel like the attempt to compress the complex topic of debate into just a few paragraphs is impossible so ask any questions before the round. I'll be more than happy to answer them!

-- Top Level --

I am a tech-over truth judge and am more than willing to evaluate almost any argument provided there is a claim and a warrant. I will be incredibly focused on the round and flowing as debaters who put in the effort to excel in this activity deserve a judge who will put that same effort into their decision. I love debaters who incorporate humor during the round i think it lightens up an activity that can often be overly serious; debate is a game and we should all be having fun playing it. Be respectful of your partner and your fellow debaters. I promise to be impartial in my decision and you can ask me questions about it. I come to my ballot through as little judge intervention as possible.

The following list is probably not necessary to read as i am just a 17-year-old from Scranton who loves debate, but I like to give the aff something to read while they let the neg prep

-- Case --

Aff - Not much to say on case. As a 2a/1n I appreciate the effort that goes into making a good case with cards that actually say what they are tagged to say. As long as your case has a good structure you should be more than fine.

Neg - Reading solvency deficits and case turns are always great. Indicting specific pieces of evidence that don't actually say what the aff says is great, and if this happens I will go and read the card after the round.

-- Da's --

Aff - Attacking out-of-date uniqueness for time-sensitive Da's like an Econ Da or Politics Da is always great. but reading evidence that says something has changed is better. Point out links that are general or aren't about the aff. Impact defense is always a good idea when applicable

Neg - The newer the uniqueness the better. Reading more specific links in the neg block if the 1nc's weren't great is a good idea. Always have a story for the Da of what causes what.

-- Cp's --

Aff - Personally I am a massive fan of intrinsic perms against process CP's, but when I'm judging you have to make that argument for me i won't give you leeway just because I think they are generally good. Always read perms. Theory is a good idea too. Answering general CP's like the 50 States CP can be hard as there is no lit base so reading more general "states bad" type stuff is always an option. On judge kick, I presume no judge kick unless I'm told differently before the 2nr

Neg - I am a massive fan of Process CP's done well, but when I'm judging I'll have as little bias as possible. When answering perms reading specific reasons as to why the perms are worse than just CP is definitely a good idea. I'm a big fan of Advantage CP's testing different ways to solve the aff's impacts. On judge kick, I presume no judge kick unless I'm told differently before the 2nr

-- K --

Aff - Attacking links of omission are always great. Have offense against the K. Try to phrase your perms in the literature base of the perm it helps to better explain why the two are mutually exclusive.

Neg - I think K's are great. Try to have more than links of omission and explain what your view on systems of power/problems of the world are. Explain what the alt actually is rather than just a tagline.

-- T --

Aff - Always have a we meet argument even if you don't. Have a counter-interpretation with offense as to why it's good and give defense as to why their interpretation isn't.

Neg - I am more than willing to pull the trigger on T. Try to read ev contextual to the resolution with a clear intent to define. Make sure to state the violation clearly; changing in it later speeches or reframing it looks sketchy from a judge's standpoint.

-- Theory --

Aff - I am one of the few judges who votes on theory cause I'm almost completely pure tech. Reading tech against CP's is a good idea and if it goes dropped or poorly answered I'll vote on it. Have a reason as to why it made this round, or will make future rounds, impossible for the aff

Neg - I will vote on theory. Reading theory against perms is a good idea. Have a reason as to why it made this round, or will make future rounds, impossible for the neg.

-- Influences --

I have had the good fortune of meeting and having my thoughts influenced by tons of people and here is a non-exhaustive list that may help you if the yap sesh above isn't enough. My hero Camden Coale, The goat Lillian Goetz, Toby Whisenhunt, The Greenhill Machine, Brandon Kelly, Sam Church, Tim Mahoney, The Associate Director of Debate at THE Greenhill School Dr. Ally Chase, Ben

Background/Experience:

Dallas Highland Park Policy Debate 2022-2024

Last Updated 04/03/24

"There can be no give up" - Martin Osborn

secondnegativeconstructive@gmail.com and highlandparkcx@gmail.com

Firstly - all the stories you've heard are greatly exaggerated.

Secondly - I'm 16, I haven't earned the right to write out a multi-paragraph explanation of my thoughts on debate. Just know I love the activity and I love hard-working debaters and will try my hardest to make a useful and helpful RFD. I'll vote for any argument and would prefer to see a team do a good job going for an argument I don't like/think is dumb than see a team do a bad job going for an argument I like/think is smart. I've never understood saying "I don't like X debate" because, at the end of the day, all debate that we do is policy debate and I believe you should be encouraged to engage in "X" style if that's what you want to do. Do your best and have fun. (You have common sense and obviously know where the line is drawn, No isms or phobias, don’t be stupid).

Lastly - If you so desperately need to know my thoughts here is a list of the paradigms of people who have influenced my view of the game and have formed my ideological predisposition, I will try to judge in a similar fashion to them -

Adrienne Brovero

Dan Lingel

Tracy McFarland

Toby Whisenhunt

David Coale

Tim Lewis

Martin Osborn

Jared "RA" Adam

Lillian Goetz

James "My name is Layton stop calling me James" Braziel (pronounced Bruh-Zil)

I really like aspec :)

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.

Some preference below:

1. Analytical, logical and evidence.
2. Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
3. Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
4. Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
5. Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.

LASA 21, Northwestern 25

Put me on the email chain: monicaelise.mej@gmail.com

I debated for 5 years at LASA debate and was coached by Yao Yao Chen and Mason Marriott-Voss. My thoughts on debate are very similar to theirs. I qualified to the TOC and the last year I debated was 2019-2020.

TLDR:

I am fine with basically everything, don't over adapt and do what you do best. I value argument explanation, so please take the time to explain your arguments. This also tends to make me more truth>tech than other judges. I am fine with speed. Don't say stuff that's racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc. (but also don't accuse the other team of doing this if they didn't.)

Theory

I lean aff on condo, but in general for condo to be viable for the aff I would like for the aff team to spend more time on it and actually respond to the negatives arguments. In general this is true for theory and everything else. I will probably not vote for you if you aren't responding to your opponents arguments and just reading blocks, but this tends to come up the most in theory debates. I lean neg on agent CPs, Advantage CPs, PICs out of the plan, and anything with aff specific solvency advocates. I tend to lean aff on process CPs, kicking planks, and CPs with no solvency advocate. I am ok with 2NC CPs if there is a reasonable explanation for them. I would like to see more teams be creative with theory; ie use it to justify a perm or as a reason the counterplan doesn't solve rather than just going for reject the team.

Topicality

I don't like evaluating T debates so please only go for T if there is an actual violation and you have a good interp and vision for the topic. This is the argument that I need y'all to explain the most, because it is very topic specific and I will probably not have the context of camp debates and thoughts that y'all do. This is where I think y'all should be doing the most clash and indepth answering the other teams arguments so that I know what is going on.

Policy Affs

I prefer judging affs that have solvency advocates and scenarios that actually relate to each other. The more specific your advantage and solvency advocate the more happy I am. I also wish the neg would take more advantage of how awful many policy affs are and how little their cards say. A good case debate can take out most risk of the aff for me and make it very easy for the neg to win.

Counterplans

I enjoy specific case specific counterplans more than generic counterplans. If you have to run a generic counterplan please at least contextualize to the aff in your explanation. You should have a solvency advocate. I am not a fan of process cps with an internal net benefit. That goes doubly for delay counterplans.

Disads

Disads also require more explanation than debaters often give them. I would really appreicate if more people would spend their time spinning their evidence, especially their link because I know its hard to have aff specific link cards. I also think its often important for the neg to set up multiple links and then chose the best ones in the late debate because it makes it much harder for the aff. I am not the biggest fan for Rider DAs but everything else is fine. Affs should compare how contrived the da is in comparison to aff scenarios.

Kritiks

I am not super familiar with K literature, so I will need you to explain your k. I also think that a K should have specific links to the aff. Similar to the disad section I don't really care if your card is answering the aff but you need to explain how the aff links based on what your link card says. I am harder to convince on structural arguments, but if you put in effort to explain them and apply it to the aff I'll vote for them. I think the best links are to the core ideas of the aff, either being the action of the plan or the core reps of the aff. I am generally skeptical about whether the alt does anything so please explain the more material implementation of the alt. I also think more aff teams should call out alts that are clearly utopian.

Kritikal Affs

Similar to what I said about Ks, I am probably not going to know what your aff is about. I have very limited knowledge on K literature and that is even more true for K affs. Your evidence should defend the same thing and be related to each other, I am going to be even more confused if your evidence is from a dozen different arguments and doesn't clearly connect. You really need to take the time to explain your aff and contextualize it to the topic (this will help you on the framework debate). The neg should try to engage the aff, I get it if you can't if you've never seen anything like it before, but you at least need to engage with the content of the aff at some point in the debate even if it is on framework. I will probably be very lost in K v K debates, but I will do my best just make sure to have very good explanations and don't rely on me having any prior knowledge.

Framework

I am not a huge fan of the fairness impact. I don't think that it can't be used convincingly, but I have yet to hear an explanation that doesn't just feel like two teams reading fairness blocks against each other. I think clash/research impacts on framework tend to be the best, but I am pretty open to anything. I think you should do impact analysis on them though. You should be specific about the ground you have lost, what the TVA is, and how the aff's content could exist in debate in another form. Also please respond to the aff's arguments and disads. The worst and most frustrating Framework debates are when teams just read blocks against each other.

I am a parent "lay" judge in Brentwood TN, and I judge for Ravenwood High School.

• Truth > Tech
• DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't understand it, it is not being evaluated.
• Time your speeches/prep.
• I do not disclose for preliminary rounds.
• For elimination rounds, do not post-round me. I am not going to change my decision.
• Speaker points are awarded based on annunciation, strategy, and quality of content.
• Everything in Final Focus MUST have been in Summary. Do not try to sneak something in because I am a lay judge.
• PLEASE COLLAPSE in summary. That being said, do not try to change what you collapsed on in Final Focus. You will receive an L.

Overall, respect each other. Especially in the crossfire. Although I do enjoy humor, please do not be condescending or disrespectful. Have fun!

Hello Debaters!

I am Christy Miner and I am a parent judge.

I will attempt to flow, please go slow while speaking so that I can write everything down! If you go too fast, I'll miss your information and can't use it for Winning Decision.

Do not run any progressive arguments; I don’t know how to judge these.

I can get hung up on jargon; if you use it, use it as a VERB and complete your remarks in a sentence so I don't have to guess. e.g. link, turn, weigh, etc.

For these online tournaments, if a debater drops off, everyone stop and pause time; we'll resume when they return.

You keep your Prep times, and I'll keep on my side for reference.

When the time for Crossfire is over, don't keep speaking.

Please be nice to your opponents in Crossfire.

If you have any questions, please ask me in round.

If you are making an email chain for evidence please add me: Christy.miner@gmail.com

I am happy to be here and participate in your event; Good Luck!

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.