Flay/parent here!

Rebuttal: Make sure you signpost well and respond down the flow or responses will be dropped.

Weighing: Use debate Jargon in the write way. etc. do not say we weigh on magnitude because we save x lives and they save only y. x>y go down their contention and signpost again with specific weighing to impacts. Meta-weighing is good.

Cards: provide cards within 2 mins

tech>truth

I'm not to comfortable with theory and K's.

Speak at a moderate speed and I do not prefer spreading. If you do spread send me your speech docs @ prashant.bhatt@gmail.com

Do not present new evidence after summary.

Speaks:I keep speaks open. Speak well you get good speaks

If you include a Taylor swift lyric you get +2 speaks ;)

Have fun be fair

My name is Venkat. I would love arguments based on facts and statistics.

I tend to have a very serious RBF: it's not you; it's me. Just ignore it. I swear it's not you. It's me.

And there's a 95% chance I am late to the round, so be ready to go when I get there, please!

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it has real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debate, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on at the end of this debate and we are good -- also if you follow Liberty debate on Instagram and show me I'll bump your speaks

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good. -- For me big framing questions with no line by line is no good for me tbh

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they have some in roads to the conversations that they want to have.

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

PF

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

For PDA summer camp tournament:

- You should be flowing throughout the round

-YOU SHOULD GIVE THE BACK HALF SPEECHES OFF OF YOUR FLOWS! (I will boost speaks for those who do)

Hi everyone! My name is Leavy (pronounced lee-vee). I debated for Poolesville.

Please add me to the email chain: leavy.hu8@gmail.com

--

-Tech > Truth

-Please keep track of your own time. Hold yourself and your opponents accountable.

-Please signpost for me!

-Off-time roadmaps!!

-Don’t misconstrue your evidence.

-Comparatively weigh- ex. not just "our impact is big" but "our impact is bigger b/c x y z"

-Speed is fine, but quality>quantity always. You should collapse in summary!

-2nd rebuttal should frontline 1st offense (at least the turns)

-I don't flow cross. Tell me during your speech if you want me to flow it/extend it.

-Be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and I will tank your speaks (so please be nice!!)

-Most importantly: have fun!!

-theory/prog args: not really comfortable evaluating them

--

I am new to judging! I need concepts spelled out for me at a conversational pace. I will vote for whoever overall convinces me of their position.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I'll be looking for well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and significance of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points. Good luck!

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

I debated in PF for four years at Spring Lake Park high school, and currently compete on the Augsburg University forensics team. I also judge LD and congress and have done so at local tournaments and on the National Circuit.

LD AND PF PARADIGM:

Overall, I'm truth > tech all the way.

In other words, dressing up a mediocre argument in debate jargon won't do it for me. I care mostly about the strength of your arguments.Sure, if you give me a really strong argument early on and don't extend it all the way through, I can't declare you the winner.However, your bad arguments will still be bad arguments even if you (attempted to) weigh it and extend and whatnot.

I look for arguments that:

1. Have convincing grounds, warrants, and impacts

2. Are not convoluted (see my comments on this below)

3. Are backed up by strong evidence

If you argument is problematic, illogical, fallacious, has weak/unconvincing warrants, etc, it doesn't matter to me how well you extended it.

If the card being used to back up an argument was not credible or cherry-picked, I will not weigh it even if it goes uncontested in round. (See pet peeves below)

Other general things I look for:

1. Signposting: Please be organized in your delivery so it is easier for me to flow and for you to keep track as well.

2. Clear speaking: Although I debated for four years, I have never ever been in favor of overly fast speaking whatsoever. I think it a cheap way to cram in too many arguments and then later say they never got refuted. I know how to comprehend general speed (sorry, it is hard for me to give exact wpm!), but if you are just spreading your case, unpopular opinion, but I think that reflects poor speaking skills.

- However fast you speak, please enunciate.

3. RESPECT AS A SPEAKER: If I see rude behavior, that is an automatic L from me. I don’t care how strong your case is.

4. Collapse arguments in the second half of the debate (summary and beyond) and please give me clear voters

5. Credible cards that aren’t cherry picked, outdated, or sketchy (see my elaboration on this below)

Pet Peeves:

1. Insisting that quantitative impacts are superior over qualitative ones:

- I don’t believe an impact is inherently not significant just because it cannot be expressed in a number. Numbers are incredibly important to prove the magnitude of a point, but it does not always outweigh a properly explained and cited qualitative impact. Although numbers tend to be more concrete, qualitative impacts can in some cases be quite powerful.

- For example, I cannot give you an exact number of how many people will die if we don't make college free (for example), but that doesn't mean the impact is meaningless. You can give all sorts of studies linking college education to employment, give research on how this might impoverish people, etc. But if you don't have numbers for the exact amount of people that will DIE, that doesn't mean the point is meaningless.

- But if you have numbers, use them. Just don't assume that your opponent's impacts aren't there just because nobody has done a formal study on how many would die.

2. Catastrophic impacts

- I am unconvinced by catastrophic-sounding quantifiable impacts. Examples include people saying "1 billion people will die from nuclear war if we do this;" "x policy will cause mass extinction;" "the passage of x bill will bring back the ice age;" etc. If you’re gonna give me an impact that billions of people will die, I’d like to hear a credible explanation with a warrant that isn’t convoluted. I am skeptical when debaters pull very unrealistic, outrageous sounding numbers, so be cautious of this.

3. Cherry-picking cards or using ones that aren’t credible

• I am very good at being able to pick out when a card sounds fishy, and have caught debaters using such cards. Have integrity, use evidence that you’ve verified, and don’t cut and paste the portions that suit your narrative.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

All the notes above still apply.

My other note - please try to move the debate along in your speeches. Too often, I see congressional debaters repeating the same points in later speeches and it doesn't do anything to advance the debate. Throughout the session, you should be addressing the points of contention from the round.

My child has been in public forum for a couple years. I have some experience in judging public forum. I make my decision based on the contentions, evidences and logic. I don't put much weight on the delivery.

I would appreciate it if the students can speak clearly and not too fast.