I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tabula rasa. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving thee following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.

I was a public school teacher for 10 years, and I am currently the senior programming manager at the New York City Urban Debate League. I've judged and coached in public forum, parliamentary, and world schools formats. Please address your opponents arguments clearly and impact. Be respectful and avoid personal attacks.

Experience: Debated World Schools in Eastern and Central Europe for 6 years, and coached/judged for 4 years. This is my first time judging PF in New York, so I'm really excited to take part in this tournament!

Background:

Clashing and weighing are the things I watch out for most during rounds. It is important to me that you are actively engaging with your opponents' arguments and proving why your case matters more, has a larger impact, is more relevant, etc.

I also pay attention to the way in which you extend your arguments and ensure that they remain present or are expanded upon throughout the course of the round.

Signposting and the provision of a framework for the debate are always very helpful in keeping track of the issues being discussed.