Spring 2023 Potomac Championships
2023 — Online, MD/US
Public Speaking Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Experience: competed in pf and policy, coach’s team and run the NWFL Civics and Debate League as an ambassador coach.
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. I don't mind aggressive clash debate, but it must remain professional and nonpersonal.
I bring a flow pad into the room and you have to prove to me your side will create a better world than your opponent's. I am a flow judge, so be cautious of dropping points and make sure your crystallization is thorough- weigh evidence and contentions.
Speaker points come through in presentation and communication. Pay attention to hand gestures, body language, and eye contact. You CAN be the better speaker and the worse debater, they are two different scores for a reason.
Cross-examination will not be flowed or scored in judging, points must be brought up again in a speech to make the ballot. Does impact speaking points.
Spreading is fine, but quantity does not make up for quality, analysis must be thorough.
Stand during Cross. Look at me, not the opponent.
Love an off-time roadmap. Helps clarify the flow and clean up the organization.
All debate lies in Impacts and Clash. Prove to me why your world is better than the opponents.
Judge paradigms can be complicated, so I am going to give you the gist of my judging philosophy and go into more detail as you scroll down. If you read my paradigm and apply it in round, you will have an advantage and be that much closer to winning. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have about my paradigm!
SUMMARY: I'm a policymaker who did UIL CX in high school, I am familiar with a couple other events though so I'm not super strict on traditionalism. I like theory, I don't like generic stuff, I don't like spreading (speed is fine), I don't like guilt tripping, I'm logical, avoid vague links, give me roadmaps before speeches, be nice to your opponents.
DETAILED VERSION OF MY PARADIGM:
I'm a policymaker, I will vote for whichever case I think has the best outcome. It is imperative in my mind that competitors uphold their burdens (of clash and proof). I default to utilitarianism framing (most good for the most people) but I love framework/theory debates, so I am open to whatever y'all bring up; you can treat me like a Tab in that regard, I'll flow anything. IF YOU DROP FRAMEWORK, THEORY, OR T, I AM PROBABLY NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU. I am open to every kind of offcase. I see debate as a game with bendable rules. If you read theory saying that I should weigh the round differently than I do according to this paradigm sheet, then I will judge accordingly (much like a Tab judge, but implicit bias makes that role unrealistic in my opinion). If you read me framing that says genocide is good, I will believe it's good until told otherwise.
I don't mind K's if they are run properly, which they usually are not. To vote for a K I would need a strong, specific link and observable impacts (ie, I'm probably not going to vote for a generic black marxism K).
This is a speaking event, I value clear speech and therefore I'm not a fan of spreading. Speed is fine. You'll know that you're going too fast when I am not flowing during your speech, I will drop my pen.
Don't be that person who tries to guilt trip your opponent or me to win. In round, I don't care about your feelings...like at all. HR impacts are fine but when you say something like "our opponents disagree, therefore they're sexist/racist/genocidal/oppressive" I'm probably just going to roll my eyes. Also, don't slander individuals without purpose (ie, "Biden/Trump is the worst president in history" if you're not making a point.)
Anyone should be able to make any argument. So long as it's relevant to the case, I (as a white male) should be able to articulate issues like racial disparities, indigenous sovereignty, sexual assault, feminism, etc. I'm probably not going to sway my vote based on your personal life experiences since I have no proof of them, keep life and the round separated. And if you get destroyed in round, meet your opponents afterward and ask them how you can do better, be cool about it.
I'm probably not going to vote for a disclosure theory, as I said I don't think that anything outside the round should affect the round. I'll still flow it though.
Please keep the flow organized, roadmaps will help you to win. TELL ME WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU!
Be kind to your opponents. If I think you're being intentionally rude or obnoxious then you'll probably lose speaks and potentially the round
Radical cases are fine as long as they meet the criteria I listed. For example, if genocide brings the world into utopia, then by all means commit genocide. This is, however, the epitome of utilitarianism and is subject to losing if the other team persuades me to adopt egalitarianism. This is true utilitarianism.
I love this event, and I want y'all to learn how to think well and improve society, or if that's not your thing then have fun! Either way, if you would like to contact me after the tournament to ask questions, receive critiques or advice for your material, you can reach me at email@example.com. I'm pretty impartial, I'll help whoever asks me. I have a job and a personal life so be patient with me, but I want to see y'all succeed and doing this makes both of us happy so please feel free to reach out!
Hi! I'm Shona Kumar, and I am a PF debater. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
IMPORTANT: In speech and debate, it is crucial to provide a secure environment for everyone, and this requires prioritizing respect. Any form of personal attacks, such as racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, or transphobia, will not be accepted, and you will be dropped if you do.
Do add me to the email chain and speech docs are appreciated. Treat me as a lay judge; really spell things out for your opponents and me.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!
General Info (Public Forum)
1. Weighing - I think weighing is significant in a round, of course, but feel free to go about it as you, please. Do some link weighing if your impacts are similar to your opponents.
2. Speed - I don't really mind speed, but make sure to ask your opponents if they are uncomfortable with it. If they are uncomfortable, slow down significantly or give them a speech doc. I do appreciate speech docs.
3. Please don't be too rude. Compassion and slight aggression is okay, but don't do anything that might make you lose points.
4. Judge Intervening - I will not call our false cards or problems I see within the round; it is up to you to do it.
5. I do pay attention during CX, but I do not flow, so carry cross args into speech. CX does contribute to speaker points, however.
6. I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand.
7. You have to frontline everything in the second rebuttal, other I consider them conceded.
8. Speaks - as long as you are not overly rude or don't completely mishandle the topic, I will give you a 28 - 30.
9. Theories and Ks - Go for theory in general if you really want. I don't have much experience with it, but I will not dock or drop you for it. However, I really don't like blippy theories or Ks; do not run them if you do not know how.
General Info (Public Speaking)
- Please be clear.
I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand.
Eye Contact - Try to make eye contact, it really makes a difference; it makes the speech sound better and makes you look more confident as well.
Gestures - While some hand movement is a great way to emphasize certain points, it's also important to not let these movements distract from what you're trying to say. So, pay attention to your hands when you're speaking.
I have a background in speech and forensics, having done policy debate (CX), oratory, congress, etc. and other speech and debate activities throughout high school and college. I'm a KUDI alumna and my graduate work is in policy analysis and rhetorical discussion of same by young people. I love debate and I want you to learn something and yes, have fun. This should be enjoyable, and you are learning critical thinking skills by doing this.
My public speaking approach:
I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.
I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."
You can send me your case. My email is email@example.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.
Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.
Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.
If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semetic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.
I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.