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.

I am a parent judge, and a lay one at that. A few things:

• I have no experience judging anything other than traditional debate, please stay on topic!
• I will not accept any speech doc/do not want to be added to any email chain (it ruins one of the most important aspects of HS Debate - public speaking). To that end, please do not spread: if I can't flow it, I will not weigh it.
• Please make sure your framework is clear, logical, and easy to understand. I am not familiar with philosophical literature, but if you want to run any framework along those lines you may do so given that you explain it clearly and demonstrate how it is upheld by your points.
• Please explain to me the importance of your arguments. If your impacts are rational and clear, you have a good chance of winning the round.
• Although I'm not particularly familiar with the realm of high-level debate (in case you couldn't tell from the rest of my paradigm), I am very familiar with current events so please be accurate and knowledgeable about anything you are trying to argue.
• Last thing - have fun! I know how much work goes into this so get the most out of it!

Hello! My name is Shashi Kumar Boriahkrishnappa! I was born in Bangalore, India and I have two sons (16 and 12). I currently preside in Skillman, New Jersey. As for my judging experience, I have judged at multiple tournaments in the New Jersey area, mostly for Novice and Varsity Parliamentary Debate. Good luck to any competitors that I judge!

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Parent Judge

Please be respectful to opponents and the judge.

Speak clearly so that I can follow and please do not spread.

Please don't run theory or abusive arguments.

Off-time roadmap and summarizing is always appreciated!

Georgetown University'19 | International Politics & WGST Certificate

A former Public Forum debater turned an aspiring international lawyer

I am a volunteer lay judge. I've judged a variety of rounds, however, keep in mind that I'm still a parent. Spreading is frowned upon solely because it's hard for me to make sure I put everything on my flow - I might have to stop flowing just to be able to understand your arguments. I'll let you know if you're going too fast for me. 

Lincoln Douglas: 

LD Debate is my favorite debate form to judge. I have a good amount of experience in LD debate, and I enjoy judging it.

I believe that LD is a very framework-oriented debate. Make sure you can tie your arguments back to your framework, as well as having some cards that support yours. I infer the word ought in the topic to mean a moral obligation, however, good reasoning for any particular framework can change my mind. If you're running frameworks such as Kant or other literature ones, please have card(s) explaining them as I am not familiar with them.

In general, I expect to see a polite and smooth debate from both sides. My speaker points start from 26 and go up from there. I like to see emotion, emphasis, facial expressions, and projection in your speaking. Mumbling and spreading will definitely be reflected in speaker points. Hand gestures are welcome, but don't go overboard and don't cover your face. I'd appreciate it if you kept your cameras on throughout the round, but if you have a technical issue, that's OK too. Don't be mean or insulting in any way to your opponent. 

I love to judge Lincoln Douglas, and have met so many wonderful debaters in tournaments. If my feedback can sound negative, it's just that I can see so much potential in your future in the debate world. Keep on going debaters, and shoot for the stars!

I'm a lay judge so please be clear and understandable so I can take notes

make sure to bring up voting issues and crystallize in your rebuttal! summaries are very appreciated

be respectful and have fun!

Hi! I'm Rishil. Enloe'25. I wanna be on the chain:rnettam2@gmail.com. I'm primarily a policy debater

ld

arg prefs

1 - k + policy

1.5- tricks+ theory+ topicality

2 - phil

honestly of the opinion that the stuff i had in my paradigm previously was sorta vapid and kind of worthless because it doesn't really get the gist of how i evaluate debates. i'm not really terribly dogmatic -- there are things i'm worse at evaluating than others (i didn't really go for kant or levinas a ton in hs) but i'm definitely able to evaluate these debates objectively and have voted for things i'm less knowledgable about vs. things i've written papers on. make good strategic decisions, focus on making arguments that have a claim/warrant/impact, and do NOT do things that are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist. these things will probably cause you to win lots of debates in front of me and will make my life easy.

i also tend to be slower to the uptake on spreading super blippy / fast analytics esp if they're not on the doc -- i promise im trying to keep up with you but if it gets to a point where my flow is incoherent jumble you should anticipate that the rfd won't be to your liking. sorry.

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

I can deal with a bit of speed but Please do not spread and speak clearly.

I enjoy getting an idea of the structure of your argument so I appreciate off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

I am tab.

Run whatever cases you want just signpost well and extend them clearly.

ellisonroycroft@gmail.com

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

I am a Parent Judge

Please speak clearly and at a good pace to understand. This will help me to understand your argument and evidence better if I don’t have to stop flowing just to catch up.

A novice at judging as a parent, but I am familiar with current events and policies that impact us at local and federal levels. I look for evidence and facts that support the arguments and good logical frameworks. A louder voice or intimidating demeanor towards your opponent won’t add to your credibility.

I will come with a clean slate and leave it up to you to tie your points to your framework and values for the win.

As an experienced public speaker, I am also looking for qualities in your speaking skills. This won’t affect your score for the debate portion, but I would like to see that you use every opportunity to practice them as a life skill. Remember, engaging your audience is half the battle in real-time debates and presentations.

Have fun!

Judge Trinh

UPDATE--4/26.24

FOR THE MSTOC-- I am a tab judge and am willing to listen to anything and everything you have to say. I am great for lay debates and even greater for more technical forms of debate. I will do my absolute best to render a decision that constructively builds character and debate skill. please pref me high if you dont want frustrating decisions.

UPDATE--4/9/24

I've come to realize that alot of judges are unwilling to vote on flat out conceded arguments that obviously have technical implications to the round. Even when extended, I seem to find that alot of the time judges are just "too dogmatic" or "unwilling to vote on theory" which is blatant intervention. Obviously, some arguments have a lower threshold than others, but when flat out conceded and doesn't have a response by the 2AR-- ill obviously vote negative. This is an event shaped by objective, not subjective evaluation, which means I will try my best not to intervene in a given round.

UPDATE--FEB 24

please set up an email chain/ speech drop prior to the round

yes chain: watkinsnate25[at]gmail.com

Currently a Junior and debate for LC Anderson in both LD & CX [ 2A/2N], Accumulated 4 bids to the TOC

I read the Kritik, Policy, and Theory the majority of the time

I default to No Judge Kick, No RVI's and Reasonability

most of this paradigm is stolen from Shree Awsare and Vaishali Sivamani

getting my ballot is shockingly uncomplex. i am becoming increasingly irritated with the rabid forms of ideological dogmatism that have taken root on both sides of the policy/k divide and the steeply declining quality of judge rfd + feedback post-return from lockdown. i am privy to watching debaters put gargantuan time and effort into reading cool and valuable things from a spectrum of different arg types and i want to see good debaters do what they do best. this means that i put immense care into rfds and value the privilege of coaching and judging at each tournament i attend. anything else is silly, wastes copious amounts of time, and waters down the quality of debates.this is your debate, not mine. do not abuse that privilege.feel free to post-round, yell at me, or whatever you have to in a respectful manner to get the most out of this experience, i will not take it personally.

Irreversible Beliefs:
- Debate is best when students reference and respond to arguments in the order in which they were presented.
- I will try my best to flow the debate. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot flow debaters who shotgun 3 word arguments at top speed nor those who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.
- I flow arguments, not character assassinations. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Screenshots are not evidence. I have neither the authority nor resources to launch an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets. Debate like you are grown.
- No double wins, devolution to another game, or soliciting audience participation. First to initiate receives a L and very low speaks.
- Escalating CX unnecessarily, heckling opponents, zoom insults, etc = cringe.
- Cheating, harassment, slurs are a L, 0 speaks, and gets your coaches involved. Same for ethics violations without evidence.
- Asking for a 30 = auto 26.
- Reading cards > Not reading cards. A smart analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards anywhere lowers chances of victory.
- No evidence insertions. Debate is an oral activity.

Idiosyncrasies:
- My speaker points are lower than the community average. I reserve 29.2+ to speakers I thought were exceptional. You can improve your points by debating your opponents rather than reading scripts, preparing effective cross-examinations, reading exceptional cards, and not breaking my verbatim with your docs. If you give your rebuttals off of a paper flow and without a computer, you will receive 0.3 speaker points higher than what you would have received otherwise.

- I am unsure why 'new affirmative' means 'blank check' for the negative. I have never understood a warrant for why it suddenly makes artificially competitive counterplans legitimate, and don't agree with the community consensus that it automatically justifies deranged conditionality. If the new affirmative is topical, it implies that the negative should have been able to anticipate it and prepare strategies. That said, the affirmative usually folds and lets the negative go bananas, so - more power to them.
- I am more amenable to negative terrorism (2NC CPs, logical CP planks without solvency advocates, word PICs, etc) than most if executed well. I do not necessarily think 'counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive' is a truism. That said, I was a 2A, and am amenable to affirmative objections. I enjoy theory debates more than most, but it has been a minute since anyone has been good at debating it.
- Objections about the legitimacy of counterplans that do all of the plan are often better explained through competition than theory.
- Critiques aren't counterplans. Links aren't meant to be 'unique' or 'to the plan' because they aren't 'DAs.' Private actor fiat of 'movements' or 'mindsets' makes it easier for the affirmative to win on the perm. Links must be paired with impacts that outweigh, turn, or bracket the case.
- Fairness is an impact for T USFG if explained right, and limits is the most persuasive internal link. Evidence-based debate seems unworkable if there’s significant asymmetries in anticipation. Affirmatives can win without a traditional plan; critiquing neg definitions and providing counter-definitions that establish a model for both sides to engage improve their win rate. 'CI - discussion of topic,' 'default to us,' 'debate bad' and its corollary of naming debaters who used their skills for evil, and poor analogies that T is akin to drone strikes are dissuasive.
- While I understand that enthymemes are to some extent inevitable in communication, I am growingly frustrated with 'technical debating' that is used as cover for having a complete argument and judge instruction. Truth bombs like 'no perms in a method debate,' 'progress is possible,' 'X is ontological,' 'T is anti-[insert population] violence' with no further detail often leaves me asking - Why? How so? I am unwilling to vote for dropped ink that I can't make sense of or can't explain back to you and your opponents.

Hey ! I am a high schooler with 4 years of debate experience:

email: diyayadav756@gmail.com (always add me to the email chain)

General:

Timing:

• there is a positive chance that I am timing as well so please maintain your time properly
• if you can time your opponent's speeches too because its hella smart to do
• I believe in a 15 second grace period but if you go over that i will drop speaks

Speed:

• i am more of a lay debater so i prefer a fast pace but not spreading
• if you do spread i will not mark speaks off but if you don't send a speech doc then yes
• if spreading and you are not clear i will shout out clear so just be mindful of that
• be clear and make sure that you can persuade a person just by your speaking skillz

Organization:

• off-time road maps are funsies !
• PLEASE SIGN POST i will be so confused if you don't tell me where you are on the flow
• i am always flowing so take that how you please

Clash:

• clash is amazing
• please have clash it makes the debate so much more fun to judge

Weighing:

• please weigh i will consider it in my decision
• Voter issues are highly recommended ! I love voter issues
• impact weighing is a must like explain to me why i should vote for you and why your impacts are higher than your opponent's :)

Cross Ex:

• i do not flow cross ex
• if something did come up in cross ex then please mention it in ur next speech

Please be respectful to me and your opponent because if your not then i will not be a happy person, it will result in lower speaks and if you are extremely disrespectful it will result to a loss :).

LD:

I am a tech over truth kinda gal so take that into consideration

• this is my main event so I love judging and debating
• no new arguments in the 2AR or 2NR i will know and I will not flow at all
• plans: I am fine with it but not a big fan. If you know how to defend it properly i will consider it but if not then its not a good time for you
• Ks: i do not like them personally :) ive slowly been getting into circuit debate so I understand them so I will not vote against them
• NO TRICKS PLEASE
• Weigh ur arguments please !! they help me evaluate the round and if you dont then ill be a tad bit confused on ur impacts
• Framework: I LOVE framework debate its my favorite, but if it gets out of hand then i will stop flowing if it gets too much. Make sure that it aligns with your case pls or else imma be sad.
• CLASHINNNNGG
• impact debate is important
• if both you and ur opponent drop arguments and neither of you notice i wont care and I will drop them too (it will not be in my ballot but just as a tip make sure to respond to everything !)

Please make this debate fun,

im fine with funny examples or like tv show examples because I will probably understand it.

Just enjoy it and legit the round doesnt have to be all serious cuz im not even a serious person :)