Harold C Keller Invitational
2022 — Davenport, IA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi my name is Talia my pronouns are they/she and I did PF and IX in high school for 3 years. I went to nationals for IX all 3 of those years. (I'm really proud of that so this is just me bragging lol) But I know a little bit about everything.
ANYWAYS my #1 thing is respect. Don't be rude to your opponents, use proper pronouns. You're attacking their case not your opponents.
I'm going to flow your case. If you end up going over by a few seconds it is okay however if it is over 10 seconds I will put my pen down and stop flowing.
I can keep up with some speed but don't spread please if I can't keep up I won't be able to write down your case, the best way to keep that from happening is sharing your case with me.
If you have questions about anything please ask!
Debated LD for 4 years
LD lay judge.
Have little tolerance for garbage in novice pools
Ks, Apriories, and Theory arguments I will flow if they are extended and evaluated on the impact level. I am fine with any speed of speech as long as you are signposting.
Extend your arguments
I am a lay judge. Persuasion and adaptation is the key to win my ballot.
Have a good round everyone!
I am a PF judge; adapt accordingly. Here are some things I can think of now:
- Don't read Ks or K affs
- I can evaluate plans, counter-plans, disads, etc.
firstname.lastname@example.org is the email for the email chain!
Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.
I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa. I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 2L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current PF coach at Iowa City West.
What you should expect of me
It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.
I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.
Framework / Overviews
If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.
There are two types of overviews in my mind.
1: An overall response to their case.
2: Weighing overviews.
I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.
Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.
If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.
My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.
I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.
I prefer 1 or 2 voters not line by line. (I will flow line by line, I just don't prefer it.)
I prefer starting on defense and then ending on offense and weighing.
I prefer frontlining first and extending narrative after the fontlines.
Frontlining =/= narrative extension.
Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.
This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.
Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.
Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.
I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.
I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
Hello Debaters, I debated four years of public forum at Eagan High School in Minnesota. Now I'm a coach for Iowa City West High School. During my time debating, I was both of first and second speaker, but enjoyed being second the most. I will try to clearly outline how I prefer rounds to go:
I absolutely think cross-fire is the most undervalued and unappreciated part of the round. I love cross-fire. If you use it to good effect and carry it throughout the round, could be a deciding factor for me.
If key evidence is contested throughout the round or one of the teams ask that I review it, I may call to see it at the end of round.
If we are online, use email@example.com for email chains: I'll only look at it if there is an issue post-round, but let's have someone set one up before round in case it's needed.
I will flow whatever you say. Run whatever you want, and I will weigh it in round. One thing to note, I have never been able to flow sources well, so please don't just say the name of the card, remind me what the card or block says. If you are dropping an arg/contention/etc, clearly let me know so I know you are trying to make a strategic decision and not just forgetting about it. Don't try to drop a something to get out of a turn though, that's still offense for the other team.
If I catch it, I will flow it. One thing to note, I'm not that fast of a writer, so if you spread, I will not catch it.
I tend to weigh more on impacts rather then link-chains at the varsity level. Really outline why your impacts are more important than the other team's impacts. That's not to say if you have a weaker impact than your opponent the round is lost, in that case, just make sure to really give me a clear link chain.
I'm sure you have heard it all before, so not much to say, only that cross will be the fastest way to gain or lose points on my watch.
Like I said before, I will flow whatever you say. Be warned though that I don't like them and I have a super low bar that your opponents need to clear to beat it. The only thing I'm a lot more understanding for is in-round evidence issues or clear rule violations.
If you are confused by what the other team is saying, assume I am also confused, so ask them about it.
Please do an off-time roadmap
I do plan on disclosing at the end of round
I am the worse with tech, so give me a second, then maybe one more :)
If we are online, and there is an issue with hearing your opponents, please speak up
Please time yourself
If you have any questions just ask. Good luck, have fun and make some good memories.
My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Notes on Speaker Points:
The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.
Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.
I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)
- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.
- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.
- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.
-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.
I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.
I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.
- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds
- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise
- I assume flex prep is A-OK
-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise
-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise
-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise
Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.
K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.
NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.
Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.
Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.
Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.
Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.
LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.
Note: Lots of updates throughout my paradigm. I flagged most of them with an "(Update: ...)." I also updated the pref shortcut in the overview.
Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)
West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 University of Iowa ‘23
I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): email@example.com
Conflicts: Iowa City West High School
Bio: I'm a 5th-year coach for Iowa City West LD. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.
I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.
-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.
-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.
-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally
-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!
-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.
I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:
K – 1
Phil – 1
Theory/T – 1
Tricks – 2
Policy – 3
Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.
Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.
SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS, PRONOUNS, ETC:
I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.
If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. Even if it doesn’t affect debate but you just want to talk still feel free to let me know! :)
This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. I enjoy seeing a K executed well.
I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. People read T against me very often, so I am familiar with that too. (update: I wrote this section after I graduated high school, I'm a lot more familiar with theory strategy now) I think the strategy behind Theory/T and the tech of Theory/T is cool and fun to watch. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:
- No RVI
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater on theory and T
- Text of interp
- Norms creation model
- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient
I went to Valley, so I started out reading phil. I enjoy the nuance of framework debate, especially related to competing moral theories.
I never read tricks and I haven’t seen them in action too much (Update: I also wrote this section a while ago, I've seen tricks plenty now.)
I never did this much, but I will also evaluate it like any other argument. I think the depth and applicability of policy args make them enjoyable to watch. (Update: I've judged a lot of policy style rounds and am much more comfortable with it, but still my least familiar style of debate)
I think post rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).
*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick
*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true
*if an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.
*I won’t evaluate embedded clash unless an argument is made as for why I should.
*I will evaluate the entire debate regardless of what arguments are made that say otherwise.
*I have no clue what judge kick is
I am a HS Science teacher at a small school in eastern Iowa. I teach Chemistry, Physics, Anatomy/Physiology, and Earth Science. In addition to being a debate coach, I also coach IHSSA (Iowa) Speech (both large group & individual). 2022-23 is my first season of coaching/judging debate.
Bettendorf High School
UPDATED: October 4th, 2022
I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.
My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.
In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'
- I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
- I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
- You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.
I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.
I am a debate coach of over 20 years. I have coached Policy, Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. My favorite is L-D, but only if you DO NOT SPREAD! I have judged at Nationals and have watched some of the best debater's in the country debate the issues, they don't cram a bunch of junk into the round.
If you prepared a good case, defend it, respect your opponent (don't be rude) and can counter your opponent you have a strong chance of winning the round.
I expect a value, the means to measure it and contentions (main arguments).
I DO NOT LIKE CRITIQUES! All your opponent has to do in the round in my book is to call you out for it and your opponent will get the win.
I expect you to be able to explain your points and defend them in CX and flow your arguments into your rebuttal. DO NOT BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS INTO REBUTTALS. Give me examples or context, so you can apply your case to the resolution. I need you to show me that you comprehend the resolution and how to apply values to it. The more you explain or give me context, the more convinced I am of your comprehension of your case and it will increase the chance of a winning ballot.
I strongly suggest that you pull your value through at every turn you can (within each contention), try to bring it into CX and of course the rebuttal. You can drop your value and value criteria if you accept your opponent, but this is risky and not recommended. At the end of your constructive and rebuttal summarize why you won!
Again, DO NOT SPREAD! If I can hear you breathe you have likely already lost the round!
I have been teaching public speaking for over 25 years. There are few careers that benefit from SPREADING! I make it a point to remind students of this!
Hi, I'm Quincy. I am in college at Rice University, I debated for 2 years and I have been Judging LD for 3 years and PF for 2 years.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. If you plan on sharing, please do so a couple of minutes before the round starts, to ensure we can start promptly.
1. If you're spreading, it will only count if you slow down to state key evidence, taglines, or authors. If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain.
2. I won't time you, I'm a lazy judge. I will notice if you steal prep, but I'm not the referee, I'm the judge(I won't say anything until the round is over).
3. Extensions: If you don't restate a card or argument, or at least paraphrase, that is an insufficient extension(e.g. saying "Extend the Yadayada '23 card" wouldn't be enough, restate the intent of the evidence).
4. Warping a source's intent will result in decreased speaks.
5. I will assign speaker points based on a number of factors, including:
a) Tactics and strategy. Debate is an intellectual battle, use tactics accordingly. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged. Try to throw a wrench in your opponent's plans.
b) Common Courtesy. Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Tell me how much prep time you are taking. Signposting is always good. Try to leave a good impression on me, and manners are probably the easiest way to do this. Respect your opponent, respect me, but most importantly, respect your school and yourself. Don't make me go away thinking that a round wasn't good just because of poor conduct. Don't be insensitive. Things such as racism, sexism, misogyny, and superiority complexes will be noted and will lead to a drastic dock in points. Basically, try to be a good person.
c) Presentation. Unless you're some prodigy who is certain to win every round, I would suggest that you appear presentable. Not all of this is clothing, and simple things like eating in a round will affect speaks. Basically, act like you are a respectable adult. Listen to your opponent.
I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.
Finally, a minor thing, I don't care whether you choose to stand or to sit while giving your speech. Honestly, standing is objectively better for giving a speech, but do your own thing. However, I would recommend that you at least sit up.
6. On the topic of in-round conduct, don't steal prep time, don't stall, and most importantly, have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them. It is not fair to waste their prep time due to your lack of preparation.
Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is clear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions. However, before you do, make a point of reading this, it is essentially a guide from the judge on how to win the round, and I don't want to answer questions that I have already answered here.
In case you hadn't noticed, I would like to be on the e-mail chain: email@example.com
Good luck, and may the best debater win!
Oh also, +1 speaks if you tastefully roast any IC West Debater.+0.1.