Lincoln Silver Bowl
2023 — Sioux Falls, SD/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello, I did debate in high school all 4 years, with the first two being in policy and the final two in Public Forum. Thus, I know what is going on, but I won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic for the first couple of tournaments, so ease me in.
Speed/Signposting: I did policy for two years so I can handle some speed, but if you aren't signposting and telling me where I need to flow what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to flow it. With that, please signpost. Tell me where you are putting this argument on the flow. I can flow everything you are saying, but only if I know what you are saying, and where I'm supposed to put it.
Weighing: At the end of the round, tell me why you win. You could have the best defense in the world, but if you don't give me any offense to vote on, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.
Truth v Tech: I am a big mix of both. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I'm not going to vote for them in that area, however, if I am left with two impacts, whichever impact is more probable is the one I'm most likely going to vote on.
Framework: The only way I'm going to follow a framework is if you pull it through the entire round, if you don't pull the framework through, I'm going to default to a cost-benefit analysis.
Personal Preferences: One thing that I am picky about is pulling through evidence. Don't just tell me to pull through the impact or pull through the link, tell me specifically what I'm pulling through. Tell me the impact I'm pulling through, and tell me the link I'm pulling through. Just because your opponents drop your contention, doesn't mean you don't have to do any work on that anymore. You still have to tell me why you win with that point. Another controversial take that I have is that the second rebuttal needs to get back to its own case. To me, you can't not touch your own case from the 2nd Constructive to the 2nd Summary.
Evidence: Some things to me are unspoken, so you don't necessarily need a card for everything. I am all for analytical arguments, but there is a line where you need evidence for something you are saying. I will also call for evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. I will not call for it if it isn't called out by your opponents, but if there is a dispute, I view it as my place to settle the evidence debate.
Topic Specific Things: On this topic of Great Power Competition, please talk about how the U.S.'s Great Power Competition causes either your benefits or harms, if you emphasize that, you have a good chance of winning the round. Also, I don't want to have to vote on climate change or nuclear war, but if I have to I will.
At the end of the day, please be respectful to your opponents, don't make me not want to vote for you because you are being disrespectful. Good Luck!
I am a PF debater but have coached/taught LD. My suggestions:
be nice, be clear and make the judges’ lives easy.
My achievements include eating an entire tub of Ben and Jerry’s in one sitting and being able to quote every episode of Criminal Minds
Slay the day, be gay :)
4-year Public Forum Debater and 2-time National Qualifier. 4-year Original Orator and 3-time National Qualifier.
Flow judge who will be very sad if you don’t signpost :,(
I take prep for cards. I have final say for time!
If you tell me to look at a card, I will look at the card.
I value kindness and respect in every debate round. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. of any kind.
Have fun! Debate should be a friendly competition. I encourage making appropriate jokes and pop culture references that will make me laugh.
if you get me in LD somehow god help you
(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)
I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity.
Policy: I consider myself a policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.
Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that did require the creation of Public Forum. The speed of today's public forum feels a lot like regional debate in the Dakota's in the 1980's, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep us from tipping over the edge in PF.
I outlined my thought on judging policy above.
Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand in PF debate. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage on many judge's ballots. Finally, weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution.
I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception of issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. Instead of droning on like most other speakers on a typical weekend, find a way to be unique and memorable. These qualities can be almost as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round and are often the difference maker, in a close round.
I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution in many parts of the country. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weight the competing values and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. I need help connecting philosophy to your connections -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner.
On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5-6. In policy debate, on a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be about a 4-5. Quite open to topicality, a little less to counterplans, and challenging to get my ballot if your entire case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments.
I debated PF, LD, and a little bit of policy during my time as a debater in Fargo, North Dakota. I am now a psychology major at SDSU in Brookings, SD.
General note: Please do not ask each individual in the round if they are ready. Just ask if anyone in the room is not ready. Please make sure to clearly identify your contentions and subpoints. I want to get your taglines down so I can adequately understand and weigh your arguments. Please time yourself if at all possible! I do not want to have to cut you off. In all speeches and cross-fires / cross-ex’s finish your sentence (not your thought) when the timer hits zero.
Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.
All values matter, but why is yours more important in this context and should be focused on in the immediate? Or even better, how can you accomplish both values?
Criterions do not need to hold moral values itself, rather it’s a lens / means to which you are going to achieve your value.
Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time. Make it easy for me to flow and understand.
If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.
Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.
If you are going to refer to cards of evidence by only the authors name make sure to clearly identify the card and author. As a judge, I prioritize writing down the evidence rather than the source.
If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.
- I also enjoy unique arguments, however if it does not make sense to me or I cannot figure it out without someone explaining it to me - it's not going to work.
Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time.
- Do not ask "Can I have first question?" It is common place that the first speaker gets first question.
Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card and it stops once you finish reading.
I don't flow Crossfire, you shouldn't make any new arguments in it. That being said, it's a great time to clarify your case and poke holes in your opponent's case, use it to set up an argument.
Good rounds come down to the final focus, don't drop an impact before/during FF and expect me to vote on it. Make sure to weigh your impacts in sum or at least in FF (heck, why not both?) Don't just tell me why your case is good, tell me why it's better than your opponent's case.
Make sure to Signpost! Road maps are good too, but Signposting is more important to me. Slow Down for tags! If nothing else, it will give you better speaks.
I don't care for paraphrasing. I won't automatically vote you down for it, but if your opponent can explain why I should vote you down you better believe I will. Same goes for misrepresenting evidence, if your opponent asks me to call for a card and it clearly says the opposite of what you said/highlighted that's abusive and you'll likely lose the round because of it.
LD: never done it, never judged it. I can probably flow a top speed of 4-5 on a 10 scale. But make tags clear/slower.
Stuff I like: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stuff I don't like:
1. Raising your voice (within reason) to make a point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Raising your voice at your opponent
2. Using gestures/movement to keep me engaged - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Using gestures when your partner/opponent is speaking
3. Unique case ideas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Having a unique case that sucks. Put in the time to make it good
4. Eye contact with me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - looking at your opponent during cross (look at me)
Silver Bowl tournament only: dissing Kanye in your FF will get you an automatic 30 speaks.
*updated for State Debate 2023
I did policy debate all 4 years of high school, and have been judging both LD and PF (mostly LD) for roughly 3-4 years now.
Important things in any debate event
I'd consider myself a very "lazy" judge in that I do my utmost to arrive at the decision that requires the least judge intervention. I really love when debaters do all the work for me, telling me exactly what is important in the round and what I should be voting on, especially with strong comparative analysis on why to prefer your arguments/how they interact with your opponent. Conversely, I loathe having to string together debaters' line-by-line arguments for them, and (when possible) will avoid drawing conclusions about the way arguments interact if the debaters do not highlight them for me.
Framing and comparative impact calculus/analysis is so, so, important and very underutilized in my experience - I groan in my head when the debaters finish the round and leave me to weigh impacts such as "a _% increase in innovation" and "a 2 million dollar increase in GDP" against each other without any further deliberation. Without either framing that gives me something to prioritize, or analysis that shows what tangible harms/benefits your impacts bring about, my decision is going to be arbitrary, and probably one that you don't like. When the round comes down to basically any amount of lives lost clashing against something more abstract, I'm probably going to prefer the former because I understand what it entails. "A 20% increase in innovation" and "a 20% increase in innovation that increases quality of life for millions and prevents hundreds of deaths from XYZ" aren't even remotely similar statements in terms of how much they would weigh into my decision.
Speed is fine by me, but on a scale from 1-10 with 10 being the fastest round possible, I am probably somewhere between a 6.5-7. That said, so long as you are signposting and enunciating tags well, you probably won't totally lose me.
I usually do not flow authors, so something like a bit of the tag ("extend that structural violence is moral exclusion") or the signpost ("extend my 3rd point on their 1st contention") is very helpful for me to follow along when you are extending evidence - that said, if you're treating the line-by-line well I probably won't be super lost regardless.
Goes without saying that you should be respectful to your opponent - assertiveness and confidence is fine, hostility and demeaning attitudes/statements are not.
Within the above parameters, go wild - I will listen to and vote for mostly anything that is handled well. Debate is an activity for education and fun so I love seeing creative arguments and strategies!
Finally, I will note that I do my best to set aside my biases in the debate space, but I am pretty strongly left-leaning if you want to pander to me in terms of authors/content.
I will ultimately make my decision based on whatever the debaters choose to make the round about, but I really love good framework debate. To me, clash at the framework level is a prior consideration to being able to evaluate anything at the contention level and thus decides how much weight I give to your contentions, if any at all. For example, if a debater wins that freedom is a paramount value over life, impacts that do not explicitly advance freedom will not be considered in my decision making process, unless the debaters directly draw the connection on how their impacts relate.
I especially love seeing offense and turns at the framework level. I see a lot of debaters choosing to largely retreat from their own framework when it is attacked by their opponent, and instead go for the argument that they do a better job upholding their opponent's framework than their opponent does. This is a perfectly valid strategy, but does not provide you the ability to "kick out" of your framework by any means if your opponent is making turns on it. By coming into the round and reading a framework of your choice, you have beholden your position on the resolution to it, and "affirming/negating the resolution upholds a harmful/problematic moral system" is compelling offense in my eyes. As with anything though, be careful not to double turn yourself if you decide to make attacks here.
I also think that Cross-X is an extremely important part of LD, and that rounds can easily be decided by a few clever questions or bad answers - debaters who use this time well will probably be rewarded with speaker points.
Lastly, I'll note that I find non-traditional arguments such as kritiks interesting, and am not opposed to voting on them in principle, but am not as familiar with how they interact with the LD framework so make sure your framing and justification is clear.
Feel free to ask if you have any unaddressed questions!
I did policy in my time as a debater, so I will be flowing and am comfortable with speed as long as you signpost your arguments effectively.
Content matters more than speaking skills to me but both are still important! I'll listen to basically any argument that is well-explained, and I appreciate creative strategies. Framework arguments are interesting but if you plan to win on them be sure to extend it throughout the round, rather than trying to use it as a "gotcha!" drop in the final speech when it was hardly discussed. Overall, I appreciate any work the debaters take to make my decision easier and less arbitrary, so clash, weighing arguments, and overviews of why you're winning the debate/key issues are super important. Lots of offense is probably one of the clearest ways to win my ballot.
Public Forum is the format I am least familiar with, so if there is anything important that is not addressed here you are more than welcome to ask!
Policy - RIP :(
I did policy for all 4 years of high school, and went to nationals my senior year, so I'm fairly familiar with most policy arguments/structure. I've also debated lincoln-douglas once or twice, and I'm somewhat familiar with the format and basic philosophical principles.
In Summary, I will listen to and vote for (almost) anything that is well-argued and explained. While generic arguments are fine and important, I love creative, researched, and specific strategies and will likely reward them. I strongly prefer if the debaters tell me how to evaluate the round, but in the absence of any sort of indication, I would describe myself as a policymaker. Make sure you're making big-picture explanations in the final speeches of clear reasons why you have won the debate, as it makes my decisions easier and less arbitrary.
I will listen to any type of argument (T, DA, CP, K, Theory, etc.) that is clear and applicable to the round. While I am much more experienced in Case/CP/DA debate, I am open to and interested by k and theory debate. Just make sure you explain it clearly, and don't assume I know all of the fancy terminology/mechanics.
I'm not huge on Counterplans/Kritiks that steal the affirmative like Agent/Consult CP's, and nitpicky theory arguments. You will be fighting an uphill battle if you run these.
Speed - No preference, but please slow down/articulate tags. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it most likely won't be relevant in my decision.
Tag-Team CX: I'll allow it, but use it sparingly and only when necessary. If the other team is clearly using it as a crutch, you are more than welcome to call them out on it, you will be rewarded in ethos/speaker points.
T - T is fine and important, but often ran poorly or unnecessarily/filler. It will be easier to convince me to vote on it if you have in-round abuse, but I will vote on potential abuse/definition and standard debate if you argue it well. I probably won't vote on T as an RVI.
Any other questions, feel free to ask me.
I was in policy debate for two years and varsity public forum for the last two of my high school career. I was also heavily involved in oral interp which means speaker performance is going to matter to me.
Make it a clean debate, sign post, and clash is always fun!
I default cost-benefit analysis
I'm not going to vote on framework unless you bring it up in your first speech, carry it through, and explain your reasoning. Do not bring it up in your first speech, drop it, and then argue it in your final focus because it will not be in my RFD or on my flow at that point.
I flow the round and will mainly vote on the flow. Please signpost! It makes the debate easier to follow for everyone in the room.
Please weigh your arguments throughout the round.
If you're extending in the summary or rebuttal, please don't just say "extend Vlasman '18" and expect me to remember the content of that card and what argument it's supporting. That card is attached to a subpoint and it will make my flow much cleaner if you extend, explain the card and why it supports your argument.
If you don't extend your argument, it's dropped from the flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Be professional, you can be polite when asking questions and also hold your opponent to an answer. I pay attention to how you present yourself when interacting with the other team and won't hesitate to knock off speaker points if you go out of line for no discernible reason. Be kind, we're all here for some good clash.
FFs and Summaries:
I'm a total voters judge. This will matter especially in final focuses. Clash and line-by-lines I can work with up to the summaries but by then you should be explaining to me as a judge what the key arguments of the round were and why you as a team are winning them.
Content is incredibly important and I can handle techy arguments.
But at the same time, I will pay attention to your speaker style and how you present your arguments and it will impact your speaker points. However, I won't heavily dock you unless you are abusive in round, commit an evidence violation, or are overtly rude to your opponent.
I most likely won't disclose but always feel free to ask questions.
I did speech and debate at Watertown High School and graduated in 2020.
I was a varsity policy debater my sophomore year. I then became a varsity public forum debater, winning State Runner Up my junior year and then State Semi Finalist senior year. I've done a variety of speech events but most notably I've qualified for Nationals in humor and duo and have won State Superiors in readers theater, storytelling, and duo. I was the AA State Champion in domestic extemp my senior year.
I'm currently a junior Public Relations and Corporate Communciation student at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Feel free to email me with any questions at: firstname.lastname@example.org
be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops
I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)
I am going to be a flow over anything judge.
If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.
I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!
I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.
For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.
Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.
I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)
You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)
- off-the-clock roadmaps are preferable to on-time roadmaps, just make them brief.
- Ask for your own prep-time, always offered in 30 second intervals.
- Assume the judges can follow along, only ask if your opponent is ready prior to speaking.
- Ideal debater is killer but cordial. Be polite but go for the throat, make sense?
- Keep arguing framework and criterion, do not drop them. Heavy consideration is given there from me.
- Key to decipher ballots: A1a is Aff Cont.1, subpoint a. RA1a is the Neg response to Aff Cont.1, subpoint a.
- Debate background:
- Judged High school debate for (9 years);
- Assistant debate coach for 2 years.
- I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
- I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery
Debate is supposed to be a learning environment & a safe community; with that being said, be respectful. Please don't be a jerk to your opponents & in cx, that's a way to lose speaks quick. Rounds should be fun & comfortable, if there's anything I can do to accomplish this for you, don't hesitate to email me or ask questions before the round. email@example.com
please sign post & have clear line by line
theory is fine but don't spend too much time on it
explicitly weigh your arguments & impacts against your opponents
the second rebuttal should respond to the first
clearly tell me how to vote in FF(say why u win!!); line by line or voters are chill in summary
don't expect me to vote off of something that was dropped earlier in the round. & i prefer to vote off of logical/tangible arguments versus an analytical/theoretical argument
do not paraphrase, read me the evidence clearly, if your opponents are paraphrasing, call it out!
most importantly, have a fun round :)
(she/they) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pre-Round Skimming=Bold)
I have 4-years' debating experience in VPF (mainly trad/lay), various IEs, and 3 years at NSDA Nats for PF/Extemp (once somehow). If you have any questions before/after the round, ask! I like giving help and will give critiques when I can.
US is not inherently a good actor <3
- Don't be an [expletive] in round. If bad enough, give you the lowest speaks possible or the L :)
- I will not stand for prejudiced arguments/rhetoric. I will give opposing team the opportunity to continue, otherwise I will end the round with a fun chat and an L for the offending team, along with lowest possible speaks and a talk with coaches.
- Use trigger/content warnings please. If you have enough foresight to do that, I expect an alt prepared.
- Please no descriptions of sexual assault/in-depth anecdotes of such.
- Your job is to make my job easy.
- Keep a clear narrative throughout the round- overviews are nice and I love them done well.
- Speak clearly :)- stumbling is fine, I feel you. It doesn't mean you're any less confident.
- In PF, it's not policy- and in LD, stay understandable. No spreading please. If y'all are going way too fast, I will raise my hand.
- For Congress, spreading is absolutely contradictory to the point of the event. Please don't <3
- If, for some god-forsaken reason, you decide to spread against my warning, please send me a case doc. Email above.
- Debate is a competition, yes, but also respect the origins. The point of debate is to persuade, and you can't perform if you are spreading. If you are going too fast, I signal, and you don't slow down... I will flow what I can understand. You have been warned.
- - - I have four points about spreading. That is a sign.
- EVERYONE: SIGNPOST PLEASE <3
- Weigh for me, otherwise I'll do it myself (and that is a threat...mwahaha).
- I generally don't vote on obviously false args. Opposition, at least tell me it's clearly false, give a quick reason before moving on.
- As long as an argument is warranted, have fun with it! I like wacky args if the links are there.
First Speakers (PF)
- Please don't state Cost-Benefit Analysis (a la common sense) as FW in your case. It is useless unless it is used as a response to your opponent's FW.
- Give me (preferably only) voters in summary (collapsing/crystallizing) - again, makes my job easier - line-by-line is rarely summarizing and I will die on this hill. At least throw in voters at the end if you decide to not summarize in your summary
Second Speakers (PF)
- Your success in rebuttal rests on signposting. Tell me where you are! Please!
- For your partner's sake (and your own), start weighing in rebuttal
- Have fun with final focus because it doesn't matter much- The round is won in Rebuttal and Summary! Be sassy but stick to your guns- keep your narrative cohesive w summary
- It doesn't matter. Keep it clean, no punching. I don't flow during this time unless there is a mic-drop moment. If there is said mic-drop moment, bring it through in later speeches.
- I'm only here for the quotable moments
- finish answer if timer beeps, but not question
- I have absolutely no tolerance when it comes to evidence violations. I have had bad experiences in round and will not let an abusive team win. If you want me to call for your/the opp's evi at end of round, tell me. Don't be afraid to stop the round and call a violation if they continue insisting on their evidence being something it's not.
Very limited experience, outside of a few rounds re: disclosure in LD and one in PF. If you run theory, be clear about your narrative and make it obvious why it should be preferred over substance.
I am sorry, I have limited experience in LD judging. I'm teaching myself as much as I can starting '21. but please treat me as a lay judge. Spell it out please. I know next to nothing about LD, so be clear and explain thoroughly. Limit jargon- I competed a lot, but in a very traditional circuit. Glean what you can from the PF paradigm <3
This is debate! The point is to learn and meet people! In the words of my former debate coach, "Do your best. Have fun."
Do NOT run a paraphrased case in front of me.
AFF or NEG should be topical, the burden is on AFF or NEG to justify why that topicality is not burdened on them if they run something that is not topical.
Arguments must have links and impacts.
I enjoy the speed at 6-9. Make sure to signpost and enunciate tags.
Slow down on the Tag.
The speech must be clear no matter how fast or slow it may be.
I will yell clear twice if your speech is not clear. If you do not adjust it to the point where it is clear and comparable then that is your concern.
You only need to convince me why there should be an affirmation or negation of the resolution.
Make sure to cover both sides in the round while also making each transition audibly between points of argument.
Case turns are underutilized in rounds. That and key impact calc are often game-winner.
Just win the offense.
Condo & Judge Kick is fine
I enjoy LARP.
Default Weigh Pref:
T>Pre Fiat>Post Fiat>Everything else
Order of weighing can be changed in rounds based on arguments made*
If you run Trixs then you should strike me if you suck at it.
My name is Kiah (she/her) and I graduated from Yankton High School (South Dakota) in 2021. I've mostly debated Lincoln-Douglas and Congress, but I have a tiny bit of Public Forum experience.
I debated traditional/lay debate throughout high school, so please keep that in mind going into round. I can handle speed to an extent.
Here is a list of things that make me :))) in rounds
1. SIGNPOSTING!!! it helps me as a judge when i'm flowing, and it should help you in round. you absolutely will get docked if you don't signpost.
2. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech
3. warrants that you can actually explain tbh
4. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)
5. when you kick your F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)
6. in general if you teach me something that’s great!!!!
Here is a list of things that make me :'( in rounds
1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will:
a. drop kick u off the ballot
b. give u the lowest legal speaks
c. talk to ur coach
d. tell ur mom
2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. i will drop speaks if necessary.
3. don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it
ask me or email me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to :) email@example.com
University of South Dakota
Hey there! My name is Emerson Keeley but, I also go by Emma. I graduated from Aberdeen Central in 2021. I only did debate for 1 year so I don't know much so please correct me if I do anything wrong. I am open to learning from my mistakes. I did show choir throughout high school, so I am WAY out of my zone. I attend USD studying Psychology with a minor in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
DO NOT say anything out the pocket, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or anything of the sort. I grew up in South Dakota, it is not fun what some people have to go through, and if you are like that to your opponent or partner, you will be downvoted instantly. I will absolutely not tolerate it!
I am most confident in this type of debate. I know most terms but bare with me. I am still fairly new. I know how to keep a decent flow. I am open to learning! I am slowly getting more confident in PuFo.
I will not disclose rounds. If you ask me to disclose, that's .5 of your points.
Make the debate traditional
I LOVE HUMOR!!! IT IS MY KILLER!!
Hi guys! My name is Zoe and I’m a former debater whose done her fair share of events. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.
Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)
Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying better, it works out better for all of us in the end. And in your final focus I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.
LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within it that framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.
Speech: In a speech round I’m looking for you to be passionate about you’re topic and really show me that you love it and care about what you’re telling me, make me believe it. I also ask that you pay attention to your peers and what they have to say. You can learn some amazing things from the others in the room. But also they have put in just as much time and hard work as you have and deserve the opportunity to be heard.
I am a college student and a coach, (past two years), I have been part of debate since 2014.
I don't like paraphrase/paragraphed cases, if you have one please make sure you can show the difference between the start of a card and the end of the other. I want a source as well for the cards.
I love direct clash with a passion. Don't just say you won, tell me why and how.
I will weigh things carried through round more then something dropped and then brought back in the FF.
If you have questions please ask me in the round.
4 years of public forum and International Extemp.
Journeymen welder and pipefitter.
You will score higher if your points are structured, well timed and impacted out to the answer of your question. Tie your intro to your conclusion. I look for all that
I vote really hard on Impact Calc and good weighing. I automatically view all public forum debate rounds with a cost benefit analysis so you don't have to remind me in every speech. The way to get speaker points with me is to read case really good and have a structured summary with voters. Have a structured, numbered, and signposted rebutall. I like speed in public forum but if you're gonna do it let me know so I can actually flow you.
Truth over Tech
I view LD with a traditional lens.
\---( ° ͜ʖ ° )---/
Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so trad circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform
Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.
Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)
Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.
Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, that it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.
May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 6ish.
Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.
If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.
I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.
Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. And please don't use off-the-clock roadmaps. 'Fancy' frameworks won't gain you any points, nor will off-the-wall cases.
Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.
I am a first/second year LD judge. I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, clarity of thought, and organization.
My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.
1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.
2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.
3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there is competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.
4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.
5) In LD, I want a strong focus on value and criteria as well as a slower to moderate speed.
Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.
PF - I dislike theory but I dislike paraphrasing even more. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important. Con probably doesn't have a burden to provide an alternative to diplomacy, but it does go a long way toward establishing uniqueness for any offense against diplomacy. "Diplomacy is worse than this specific/probable alternative" is a more compelling argument than "diplomacy is bad".
LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.
I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.
Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.
My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):
Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.
I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.
Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.
Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.
Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.
I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.