Tabroom.com

Harvard Round Robin

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Public Forum RR Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Shamshad Ali Palm Beach Independent

Lindsay Allen The Chapin School

Nir Amin Hire

Matthew Anzarouth Hire

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 8:25 AM EDT

I'm a former World Schools debater for Team Canada, and currently an APDA and BP debater.

Main things to keep in mind:

1) I like warrants. From Inko Bovenzi's paradigm: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence" I like this approach for two reasons: a) Evidence on its own is rarely capable of proving an argument. Debate topics are contentious issues with evidence in favor and against — maybe the evidence in favor is stronger in certain contexts and weaker in others. b) In the time constraints of a debate round, evaluating the strength of warrants is a fairer and more achievable objective than evaluating the strength of evidence. The former, done well, requires me to listen to and assess your logic. The latter requires me to read entire studies, evaluate the soundness of their methods, in many cases distinguish between causation and correlation, and ensure that the link between that evidence and your argument is sound.

2)Weigh arguments. Most rounds can be won on weighing. But weighing needs to be good. Saying "only magnitude matters, probability does not" is not good weighing. I guess in some limited cases, that will win you the round. But I can't think of any cases where it would give you good speaker scores. Any evaluation of a utilitarian outcome is necessarily a combination of probability and impact. You can argue that an impact is so great that we should prioritize it despite the low probability, but that is far from saying "only magnitude matters because we can't assess probability" or some line of reasoning like that.

3) Theory: I really don't like theory arguments, and I have no experience making or evaluating them. I will listen to theory arguments, but I won't love them.

4) Speed: Don't do anything outrageously fast. I will not penalize you for going fast. But you run the risk of underanalyzing certain claims or not communicating them clearly enough for them to be round-winning.

5) Calling evidence: I generally won't call evidence, except in some cases if you ask me to. But in general, try not to do that unless necessary. I also have a good sense of when teams are lying about or exaggerating evidence. So do not do that.

6) Be respectful to your opponents.

7) HAVE FUN!

Hemanth Asirvatham Hire

Rohan Battula Hire

Inko Bovenzi Hire

Matej Cerman Hire

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 9:56 AM EDT

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EDT

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:12 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Theo Datta Hire

Max Fan Hire

Ananya Ganesh Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:03 PM EDT

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
I adore puns. The worse the better.
I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war.

Cecilia Granda-Scott Chantilly HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:27 AM EDT

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college.

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid
Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.
I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round
Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.
My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.
If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Hugo Hinze Hire

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 3:46 PM EDT

I'm a freshman at Harvard with limited experience in APDA and BP. I did not debate in high school, so I don’t have much experience with PF, but here are some general thoughts. Some of these are borrowed from Matej Cerman’s paradigm, and I generally align with his philosophy.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Research can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh and weigh explicitly. If there is no weighing at all, I am left to resolve the issue through my own intuition. That’s frustrating for you. If there is weighing from one side that was dropped by the other side, I will evaluate it even if it isn’t well explained.

3) I will listen to and evaluate high-impact, low-probability impacts like nuclear war, but I don’t like them. I think it’s a much better use of everyone’s time if you give me an argument that’s plausible and interesting. From Matej Cerman’s paradigm: I’d rather hear a well thought out argument than “how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.”

4) Please don't spread. I am German, so I appreciate the efficiency, but speaking at a quick conversational pace will do the job. Being concise is a skill, too.

5) I don’t know anything about theory, and have a strong bias towards arguments that are actually about the topic. If you do use theory, I will listen, but I won’t understand anything unless you really over-explain it. Though, at that point, your time is probably spent more effectively on the actual argument at hand.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

Robey Holland Plano West Sr High School

Last changed on Sat February 9, 2019 at 3:55 AM CDT

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Jenna Hong Hire

Sam Jones Hire

Min Ko Ko Hire

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 9:59 AM CDT

minkoko@college.harvard.edu

Hello! My name is Min, and I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard studying government, economics, and social theory. I competed in debate all four years of high school, where I focused primarily on World Schools-- but am familiar with PF and IE events as well. I currently am a member of the Harvard College Debating Union, where I compete in American Parliamentary.

General norms

Please be respectful and reasonable. High school debate can get really nasty at times, and we're all here to have a fun and educational experience. Don't use personal attacks against your opponents, use prejudiced language, or make sweeping generalizations (all of which are signs of poor argumentation as well).
I am not a huge fan of spreading. However, I understand the need to get all the arguments in for formats like PF and LD, so I can definitely listen to fast-paced speeches.
Dislike theory

Public Forum

It's been a while since I've done PF, so I might not be as familiar with the timing/prep/showing cards aspects.
Speed is okay if you need it to fit in quality arguments.
I dislike evidence wars. Don't nitpick at the validity of one source back and forth.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
Roadmaps are helpful. Anything that makes my life as a judge better will help with a flow, which will help with a ballot.
I come from World Schools, where reasonability is king. However, in PF I have to consider all points on the flow especially if the other team drops it. That being said, just because you manage to link your tiny policy change to nuclear war or climate change or AI or whatever doesn't mean I will give you the win automatically (well, if the opposing team actually does its job). Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily mean the biggest impact in the round. In these instances, weigh probabilities as well.
CX is mostly useless for me.

Truth be told, I have never debated in LD. I have seen a few rounds, but am far from an expert at the format. I am somewhat familiar with the vocabulary such as "criterion"
Speed is fine, full-on spreading might mean I miss a few of your points during a speech.
I have a background in political philosophy and social theory, so feel free to utilize those constructs when discussing values.
Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily imply automatic win--weigh probabilities and magnitudes as well.
Standard debate procedures apply- weigh impacts, consider the two worlds, give roadmaps etc.

Congress

Never competed in Congress but have judged it before
I will rely on the PO to keep things orderly, not too familiar with parliamentary procedure
A good speech can be many things--keep it organized (typical intros, arguments, conclusion)
I enjoy rhetorical flairs and style--it keeps things interesting in an otherwise very long session
One thing that annoys me if the speeches keep saying the same thing or same argument over and over again. Be creative and come up with some novel arguments (even if it's nonstandard, it's better than you regurgitating a previous speaker's points)
I expect later speakers to respond to the statements earlier speakers have made

World Schools

I absolutely love World Schools and it's my favorite format of debate because it's accessible, current, and meaningfully engages with real world issues--so I hope rounds continue to operate in that way! I mainly operated as a First and Reply speaker.

I think tabula rasa judging is a bit vague at times, and this paradigm opens up the potential for a lot of weird stuff said in the round to stand. For the most part I am tabula rasa, so YOU should do the work of telling me WHAT to prioritize when voting. But because reasonability is an inherent part of WSD I'm not going to let really bizarre stuff dictate the round, even if a team drops that argument. I'd rather a team makes an argument on reasonability than me intervening.
Assume that I as the judge am a moderately well-informed member of society (like a New York Times Reader). Explain anything requiring specialized knowledge out to me, but there's no need to tell me that India is a country in Asia or that the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Try to adhere to traditional norms of speaker roles--aka first speaker offers the first 2 substantives and potentially a model, second speaker focuses more on line by line rebuttal, third speaker on collapsing and weighing. However, I'm not going to penalize you if you buck the norm and have innovative argument construction.
Ideally, POIs should be offered around every 30 seconds and each speaker takes 2.
Use global examples if relevant to the topic.
One of my pet peeves is when people try to fill up the whole 8 minutes of a speech by repeating stuff they already said. If you find there is nothing more to be said, please just end the speech.
This isn't a huge problem in WSD but I also hate evidence wars. Nitpicking on a particular warrant isn't particularly helpful to me as a judge, and focusing on bigger picture ideas will most likely be a better use of your time.
Be mindful of actors/stakeholders and voters. Look at clashes in the round. Clarify the different worlds of Prop and Opp.
Be mindful of both practical and principle concerns, and smart WSD teams will focus on the area that is stronger to their side.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
I enjoy creative arguments that suggest that you researched well and thought about these ideas deeply. Of course I will be expecting stock arguments in a particular motion, but an innovative argument that makes me see the round in a new light will be rewarded. On the other hand, arguments can get TOO creative and have no basis in political or economic reality.
Ballot: Content will focus on evidence-based reasoning and whether your impacts outweighed the other team. Style will focus on well-structured arguments and clarity. Strategy will focus on how well the three of you work as a team, good POI strategy, and the ability to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses as they appear in the round.

Gregor Kossmann Hire

Rasmee Ky Hire

Matthew Mauriello Hire

Tim Missell Lambert High School

Elliott Mokski Hire

Pranav Moudgalya Hire

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 2:58 PM EDT

I am currently a student at Harvard College. I dabbled in debate while in high school (if it matters to you, I debated under University Irvine Independent or University High School, Irvine Gupta & Moudgalya).

I would certainly not consider myself an incredibly technical judge. To that end, however, I will do my best to flow the debate; you'll give your side of the debate the greatest presence on my flow if I can write down everything and hence, I recommend speaking either slow or only moderately quick. You win my ballot if you can: 1) explain your arguments clearly and with strong evidence and warrants and 2) explain why your opponents arguments are wrong and explain why your arguments matter more than your opponents arguments. I am very expressive – if I agree with what is being said, I will likely be nodding along and if I am confused, I'll likely express my confusion.

In regards to weighing, I think that weighing is an incredibly important aspect of debate. However, simply throwing around buzzwords like 'magnitude', or 'risk of offense' will not carry you far in the debate. Weighing is best delivered when it is early, warranted, reasonable, and contextualized.

Since I am a few years removed from the activity, I am unsure about what the 'meta' of the activity is; when I left, theory was starting to gain steam and paraphrasing was commonly frowned upon. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and hence, I do not have any preconceptions about rules or norms in debate. Apart from an argument (and of course, behavior) that is discriminatory or hateful, I am open to hearing any argument, provided it is clearly explained and well warranted.

Lastly, I love snark/sass but hate disrespect. The line is incredibly fine. Be careful, respectful, and most of all, have fun. Debate is not worth it otherwise! You are welcome to post-round me (respectfully); I view my job as a judge to adjudicate debate to the best of my ability and to that end, I don't mind questions.

Iman Onbargi Hire

Radvilas Pelanis Hire None

Daniel Perez Hire

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:57 AM CDT

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Sophia Polley-Fisanich Edina High School

Last changed on Mon November 28, 2022 at 7:37 AM EDT

The state of PF has compelled me to do the unthinkable — write an actual paradigm. Here we go!

I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 3 years in PF.

I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF A DOC.Read fewer arguments, don't try to dump your way out of clash.

NEW WARRANTS ARE NEW ARGUMENTS. If your argument didn't have a warrant or an impact in rebuttal, I will evaluate it without one, even if it newly appears in summary or (god forbid) final focus. That being said, GOOD WARRANTS > UNWARRANTED EVIDENCE.

RESOLVE THE WEIGHING DEBATE. If nobody tells me definitively which impact is more important I will decide based on vibes. This is probably a BAD THING for you. I really like pre-requisite and short-circuit analysis — if you don't butcher it I'll probably vote off of it.

Ks ARE GREAT, THEORY BETTER NOT SUCK. To be fair, your K better not suck either. I have fairly significant experience with K debate, but definitely make my role as a judge clear in your advocacy. If you run a frivolous or weirdly nit-picky shell in front of me, the best-case scenario for you is an LPW. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad whatever. I don't really care about niche theory jargon; "paraphrasing is bad for X reasons" is the same thing as "A IS THE INTERP HEWJKHFJQKHJK" to me.

I AM LITERALLY BEGGING YOU ON MY HANDS AND KNEES TO COLLAPSE. I won't hack against you if you don't, but I will definitely assume that you hate me and want me to suffer if you extend 5 args in the back-half.

BE SILLY AND GOOFY AND HAVE FUN. Having a toxic, venomous round is such a headache. We will all feel better if you chill. To my guys and dudes specifically, bulldozing female debaters in cross isn’t a slam dunk. It makes you look like a loser.

DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Sophia Polley-Fisanich) and my email is sophia43762@gmail.com (don't put me on the email chain tho).

Tilly Robinson Hire

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 7:34 PM EDT

Hi y'all! My name is Tilly (she/her), and I'm excited to have the opportunity to judge your debate and/or speech rounds :)

Background: I'm a sophomore at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana. During high school, I competed most extensively in LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative.

Lincoln-Douglas: I debated for all 4 years of high school, primarily in LD, and I was competitive on the Indiana circuit, where I attended 5-10 tournaments per year. If your debate experience is in traditional LD, please treat me as a flow judge. If your debate experience is in progressive/national circuit LD, you should probably treat me as a lay judge, at least to the extent that I have little familiarity with progressive debate (aside from what I've read in the debate blogosphere). Here are some notes about how I judge:

General Principles:

Debate encourages us to learn about interesting ideas that interact with each other in interesting ways. For me, the single most important thing you can do in a debate round is to genuinely think about the ideas in play. Why do your arguments make sense — or not? What contexts and assumptions underlie them? I think if you do this, you'll be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the debate.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. That said, if you are relying on cards to make an argument, they should contain information that actually proves your point. For example, if I am choosing between argument (a), which relies on an assertion of some fact by a famous professor, and argument (b), which doesn't include a card but does include good analysis that negates argument (a), I will vote for argument (b). However, if I then hear argument (c) which provides sufficient empirical evidence to show that argument (b) is false and argument (a) is true, I will then vote for arguments (c & a).

I appreciate clash — make sure you are doing your best to understand and respond to your opponent's arguments. Especially if you're not going line-by-line, make sure to roadmap (on- or off-time) so I know how to structure my flow.

To vote off a given argument, I need to be able to believe that it's true (which requires warranting and, generally, evidence) as well as why it matters (keep in mind question like: what is the impact? why does it matter under this round's framework? how can I weigh this impact against other impacts in the round?).

I am "tech > truth" to an extent. However, I also consider myself reasonably well-informed about the world. Therefore, while I will try not to intervene in the round, if you are making an argument that contradicts common assumptions I might have drawn from, say, reading the news or taking history classes, you may have to do more argumentative work to persuade me of your argument.

Re: judge intervention, I will intervene less the more clearly you explain your arguments and their implications.

Some Specifics:

Please don't spread. (I'll let you know if I can't understand you — but just in general, assume I can't understand spreading.) I can flow relatively fast "normal" speech (and I understand the desire to fit as much information into the round as possible), but I will flow more accurately and in more detail the closer you are to a normal conversational pace.

Please use theory only as much as necessary to maintain a fair debate. Don't run tricks that are not also actual, good arguments.

That being said, I will evaluate most arguments (including kritiks, counterplans, etc., if in a circuit where those are a norm), as long as you explain them clearly (i.e., you offer warrants for all your arguments instead of simply name-dropping jargon, you explain any cards that aren't self-explanatory, you make it clear why your arguments are relevant to the resolution and my ballot).

Please send me your speech docs if you have them, but understand that I will only open them to check content/evidence if called (or if I'm skeptical about something that's asserted in the round), and that any argument you want me to evaluate should be clearly stated (and warranted, and backed up with any necessary cards) in your actual speeches.

Finally, remember that while I have specified some preferences here, my goal as a judge is to make debaters feel welcome and cast a well-considered ballot based on what happened in the round I judged. Please don't just run the arguments you think I'll "like" — run the arguments that you think are compelling, interesting, or important.

Other Debate Events: In general, my LD paradigm applies to all debate events. I have competed once in PF and once in Congress, and have judged both events. I have never competed in policy, but I've read at least one textbook on how to debate in policy (i.e., my knowledge extends to some familiarity with stock issues and a little bit of policy jargon, but I'm not familiar with technical arguments or current trends in the policy circuit).

I'm fine if you paraphrase evidence, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you mention in the round.

Congress

Your speeches are short, but please do your best to make them substantive! If you speak early, try to frame major issues in the round so that your speech stays relevant and resonant throughout. If you speak late, try to either (a) weigh arguments that were made earlier in the round and analyze how they interact with one another, (b) introduce new arguments/perspectives/evidence that have not yet been considered, or (c) both. I vote off substance first, but I do appreciate style. :)

Extemp:

I love extemp. Make sure to answer your question. Like in debate, genuinely thinking about the question and its answer(s) will go a long way. Don't make up evidence. Don't freak out. Also, remember to give a speech you are comfortable with and confident in, instead of stressing about what I might like in a speech.

Here are some other things I do appreciate:

Interesting AGDs and transitions (as long as they don't detract from substance or strike a tone inappropriate to your question).

Signposting. Make sure I can clearly track your separate points!

Unified analysis. (This is when you have an umbrella thesis that unifies the separate points in your speech into an answer that is more specific/detailed than "yes" or "no." It's not necessary, and a good speech without unified analysis will beat a less good speech with it — but unified analysis may make your speech more cohesive if you can pull it off.)

Diversity of evidence. If you can cite different types of sources (e.g., an Associated Press article with breaking news, a book laying out an international relations theory, an NBER study on the gender wage gap), each offering a different perspective or type of information to bolster your points, then you will probably be able to put together a very well-rounded speech.

Quality and relevance of evidence. For some topics, recency of evidence matters a lot; for others, older evidence can still be valuable. Make sure to cite reputable news sources (think NPR or the Washington Post, not Fox News) and note biases or perspectives (e.g., the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, while The Nation is a left-leaning magazine).

Context. If you can place your arguments in historical context, frame them with academic theories, or understand how seemingly disparate issues influence one another, I think that's really impressive.

Beyond that, of course, Extemp is a speech event, so I do care about style! I won't penalize you for small stumbles, but if one speech is significantly more fluent than another, that is a big point in its favor. Similarly, things like using vocal variation, gesturing naturally, embodying a range of emotions, and sounding like you're having a conversation (not, er, talking to a wall) will all help your speech stand out.

Other Speech Events:

Public Address

Be funny, be passionate, be solemn, be conversational — whatever tone(s) work best for you and your message.

I appreciate speeches that address interesting, arguable topics, rather than simply relying on platitudes or common assumptions. I enjoy clever rhetoric and powerful writing — as well as solid argumentation.

I weigh speaking style, writing style, and content in my decisions; because these factors play into one another, I don't categorically prioritize one over the other.

In Info, I appreciate creative and interesting visual aids (although I am totally willing to vote for a good speech with few or no VAs). Remember, visual aids should help you convey your message, not distract from it. I won't penalize you for small mishaps (e.g., you will be fine if your stand falls over).

Interp Events

I don't have much personal experience with interp, but I really enjoy watching interp and admire interp performers, and I'll judge as best I can.

I appreciate clear pops between characters and precise, creative blocking.

Although you didn't write your speech, you did select and cut it, so I will pay attention to your choices. Does the narrative make sense? Is the piece itself successful (i.e., is it thoughtful? is it funny? are the characters believable?).

If your piece seems to exist for the sole purpose of being maximally traumatic, I will rank you low.

The balances between naturalism and exaggeration, drama and humor, etc., are yours to strike. If I think you chose the right balance for your piece and performance style, I will rank you higher!

Miscellaneous:

Don't be discriminatory.

Please assume (within reason) that others in your round are well-intentioned. People with good intentions can still say harmful things, but usually it's more effective to explain to them why something is harmful than to ice them out of the conversation.

Speech and debate rankings are a zero-sum game, but speech and debate are not! I hope you have the opportunity to learn from your own research, reading, and practice; learn from one another; and find a community through speech and debate. Have fun!

Sophia Rubinstein Cary Academy

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 2:22 PM EDT

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

debate stuff

i will vote off the flow
tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe
start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent
COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”
PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)
no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either
please collapse
extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow
SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents
if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip
defense isnt sticky
you should have cut cards

if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

speaking stuff

send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards
i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you, but i would still send the text to be safe
have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird
do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying
speaks

i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)
I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows
-.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”
-1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence
+1 speaks if you make me laugh
please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)
you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)
i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric
i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive
at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

Siddharth Satish Hire

Amal Sayed Hire

Daniel Sheremeta Hire

Johnathan Sun Hire

Matti Tan Hire

Sierra Valdez Hire

Andy Wang Hire

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 7:27 AM EDT

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

Devon Weis Poly Prep Country Day School

Last changed on Tue March 7, 2023 at 12:52 PM EDT

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Alexandria Westray Hire

Michael Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

Harvard Round Robin

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Public Forum RR Paradigm List

Judges