Seven Lakes Cy Park TFA IQT Swing
2024 — Katy, TX/US
LD and PF - Online Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hide[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]
[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu
Public Forum Debate:
TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.
Similar Outlooks: My views are similar to those of my former teammate, Grant Barden. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as he does in his paradigm. We share several takes we can no longer remember who first came up with.
On Substance:
Speed. I'm good with spreading, but it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are unclear, I'll shout "CLEAR" twice. I'll stop flowing if you aren't even trying to be clear. You MUST: (1) send a doc BEFORE the speech, (2) slow down on analytics, and (3) signpost when going off doc.
Speech Docs.(1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. (2) Doc sharing must be irreversible. I’ve never been on a Google Doc that wasn’t immediately un-shared after the round. There are also evidence ethics concerns here. (3) Speech docs are for evidence sharing, not for sharing evolving rhetoric.
Cases. I'm open to anything. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative or not stock.
Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, I would be content to hear a theory shell calling it out.
Framework. It defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so immediately for clarity.
Impact Warranting & Terminalization. ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death]; it is not presumed.)
Signposting/OTRs. Please provide an off-time roadmap, signpost, and FOLLOW IT.
Cross. I'm listening but not flowing. If a point is made here, it must be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are insulting or stage a soliloquy that rivals Shakespeare's to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.
Calling for Evidence. I’ll only review evidence for abuses if asked to. Only read the evidence you have on hand; it shouldn't take forever to retrieve. No, a hyperlink you found mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also cut it mid-round.
Power-Tagging. I can forgive some power tagging, but evidence should, at a minimum, imply the assertion in your tagline. If you tag something to deceive, whether it's an evidence alteration or mislabeling arguments to confuse opponents, I’ll decimate your speaks.
Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary; the first gets a little latitude. Also, collapse and weigh.
Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be exceptionally in-depth. I could care less about authors. The less contentious an issue is in the round, the lower my threshold for an adequate extension. If your opponents don't extend, bring it up in a speech.
Turns & Extensions. (1) If you are going for a turn, YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. (2) A turn loses offense if a de-link is conceded up the link chain.
Weighing. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (e.g., scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Do not use "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are abusive and amount to either (1) new un-warranted defense claims or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." "Cherry-picked" evidence analysis is less common but even more ludicrous. While weighing is essential, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning it.
Skipping Grand. I'm okay with this, but we’re going straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocation.
Post-Rounding. It's okay. Post-round as hard as you want. Ask as many questions as needed so you can understand my decision correctly. Feel free to email me, too.
Off Substance:
Progressive Argumentation. Theory, kritiks, tricks, and more are valuable parts of debate but should not be used to decimate novices. If you do this, I’ll down you.
Presumption. Presumption defaults to the status quo unless a team wins that presumption must behave differently. If you’re arguing this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary; no new-in-final presumption arguments because you've just now realized you have no offense.
Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate judge of what you consider abuse. Theory should be read immediately after the alleged violation. You must dispute a theory shell in the speech after it is read. Shells only need to be extended in summary and final. Reading theory carries a heavy burden: I don’t prioritize the text or spirit of a shell; I am a stickler for both. The interpretation's exact wording and the shell's spirit should not fluctuate. The interp should also be simple. The more conditions you include, the more skeptical I’ll become. If you’re proposing a rule for debate, you must ensure it doesn’t have loopholes. I’m very perceptive to squirrely “we-meets.” At the same time, I don’t expect a word-for-word extension outside of the interp itself.
IVIs. These are usually unproductive. Shell format is almost always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.
Disclosure. I’m open to disclosure theory, but keep the following in mind: (1) See the note about new TFA rules below, if applicable. (2) I despise the 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, mainly when run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even for big schools, against small schools; just use other standards.
TFA Constitutional Amendment On Disclosure. The TFA recently adopted an amendment finding: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." If you intend to run disclosure theory, please ensure that the tournament doesn't stipulate that judges cannot vote on it.
Trigger Warnings. I don’t require these, but if you’re wondering whether an argument needs one, it does. If providing a TW, participants should be able to anonymously opt-out. Often overlooked, I’d suggest TWs for “wipeout” and “spark,” as you’re arguing all participants in the round should die.
(Post-Fiat) Ks. I'm willing to go here. I'm familiar with common Ks (e.g., Capitalism, Feminism, Securitization, Orientalism, etc.) However, if you're doing something uncommon, make sure you explain the literature, as I am likely not familiar with it. Do NOT paraphrase your K.
(Post-Fiat) K ALTs. EACH K MUST HAVE A SPECIFIED ALT. It can be the status quo, but it must be specified. By not specifying an alt, you’re making it the judge’s problem to define your world, and I won’t do that work for you. IF YOU LOSE YOUR ALT, YOU LOSE THE K. This is the one place I’m firmly against condo. You can't lose your alt and still win on the status quo; the status quo is its own alt. Since the K up-layers almost everything the harms of condo are supercharged.
(Pre-Fiat) "Ks". These are a new development in PF and are the imperfect result of translating policy's "K Aff" into the PF space; as such, I am still trying to sort out my views of them. As of now, I don't consider them to be Ks (at least in the applicable PF sense) due to their lack of (1) an alt and (2) policy analysis beyond a superficial moral level. I'm still willing to vote on these. Please present it as an ROB or Overview. If you go for this, I expect clear reasons why the ballot is key to the "K" and what the ballot does; err on the side of overexplaining.
Condo. One or two conditional advocacies, counterplans, or kritiks are fine. Don’t spam excessive conditional advocacies and abandon key positions to undermine substantive clash. I’m perceptive to Condo Bad if a team claims more than two conditional advocacies.
Topicality. T debates have great potential that often goes unrealized. Keep a consistent narrative, and be sure not to read contradictory interps. If you’re reading T, CALL IT T. Most issues with T debates stem from them being called something else.
Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being unethical, I can vote off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (e.g., racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech.
Plans/CPs. I'm undecided on whether these are beneficial in PF. Feel free to run them if you like them, and you might just convince me why I should advocate for their inclusion.
Phil. I’m open to it. Because this is generally uncommon, explain it well. DON’T PARAPHRASE.
Tricks. If I can understand the trick without background knowledge, I’m open to voting on it. But, I have a low bar for a sufficient rebuttal proportional to how inane the trick is. You’re welcome to read “Nothing’s the cause of anything,” but I’ll consider the response “That’s stupid” sufficient.
TKOs. These are stupid. There are always ways a team can still lose; a TKO crowds those out. I will down you if you go for this.
On Other Events:
Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority of LD argumentation. The relevant commentary above on debate applies; I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD like in PF. Please ensure everything is neatly on the doc or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I’m familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.
World Schools' Debate. There is not much to be said here. I will decide on the round before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should take at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also, if you are speaking, at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate; I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.
I have coached debate for 20 years. I have coached multiple state champions and National qualifiers. I like to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation in LD. I don't like to see policy plans and K in LD. I don't mind them in CX, but do not like to see generic argumentation that you pull out round after round. That being said, I will adapt to you - your job is to make sure you define the framework of the round. Don't assume I have read your advocacy authors. Spell it out.
Slow down if you want me to flow it. There is a big difference between hearing and being able to process the information that is being presented.
Semantics are important. Rhetoric is important. A strong speaker with solid word choice is always going to score better than a spewing gasper. Analysis presented well, weighs as much as evidence that is not supported with argumentation.
I LOVE CONGRESS! and speaking events, and actors, and readers, and the forensic community. Don't be a jerk and we'll get along just swell.
Do not spread, I cannot vote for you if I don't understand what you are saying. If I feel you are speaking to fast, I will only give one verbal warning to slow down.
Disclosing is at my discretion unless otherwise stated by tournament rules.
Please be respectful of your teammates/opponents.
I'm a parent judge and if you want to impress me then speak slowly, make logical arguments and please do not make up statements and data that can either be checked easily or simple common sense can tell that it is made up.
junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com
2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier
i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.
tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters
this is how i go through the round:
i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.
don't do isms
frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.
extend uniqueness, link, and impact.
go for less and explain what you go for better.
time ur own prep and speeches
u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything
i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics
progressive args
i like prog args
for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap
if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!
paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh
speaks
i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.
Welcome! This will be my first-time judging, please be respectful and speak with clarity. Debate is not my area of expertise, so please use simple verbiage and elaborate your topic in simple terms. Thank you!
** side notes from judge
DEBATE:
Speed
I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.
Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.
Speaker Points
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round
**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
Good luck Contestants.
Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com
LC Anderson 22
UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant
email for email chains:
ld: Tech > Truth
Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.
Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters.
Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.
K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.
phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time
Other things:
Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.
Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability
Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking
Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo
if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!
pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision
congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower
feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!
have fun!!
I am a parent judge. Please be enthusiastic and put passion into your speeches the entire time. Eye contact is key and be expressive with your face. Lastly, remember to have good usage of hand gestures.
I am a lay judge, do not speak fast, no jargon. Using good rhetoric will help you.
hi! my name is nitya and i am currently a freshman in college at a&m! i have been competing on the circuit for the last four years (in high school at seven lakes) primarily in world schools debate, platform speaking (info/oo), and extemp (mostly foreign/international but i'm also very familiar with domestic/us). i have specific things i am looking for/judging on for different events, so i will list those below.
platform (oo/info): generally, i want a very clear structure and organization for your speeches. for info: history, current-day, and implications (this is more flexible, but the points shouldn't bleed and there should be a clear thesis for your speech). for oo, there needs to be three super distinct sections: problem, impact, and solution- i like tangible solutions. for general presentation requirements, speak with good tone, clarity, and vocal variation. good hand gestures and a speaker's triangle are always a plus. i can also tell if you're not memorized, and memorization is a big part of these events. for info specifically, your boards (if you have them) do not need to be revolutionary; however, they shouldn't detract from your speech or BE your speech- they are there to ADD to your speech. i will not give you a high rank just because your boards are nice, you have to sell it with your speech too. i also like vehicles.
worlds: clear arguments- this is a big one, don't let the debate get too muddy or too theoretical. the event is pretty evenly split on style and content; however, if style is pretty evenly matched, i'm voting on arguments. default to i'm voting on arguments. be aware of wording- in worlds "this house believes/supports/regrets" are NOT action items- i CANNOT vote on solvability is is more theoretical. with "this house would/should" has solvability because the house is actually acting. this is a pet peeve of mine, so do be aware. although there is no evidence in the form of cards/citations in worlds, you NEED to have examples (i know this is harder for impromptu, but solely theoretical examples is not strong/won't be compelling). overall, be clear, be strong in style, and be winning on the flow.
extemp: i'm not a stickler for citations, have them, cite them correctly, but don't let them be your whole speech. i love a good umbrella answer when done correctly, it deepens analysis and it's good. you can be cadence-y that's fine, but still have vocal variation. hand gestures and speaker's triangle are a must. characterize the situation always, never assume i will know exactly what you're talking about. humor is always good, but not necessary.
impromptu: all stylistic stuff from extemp applies here too. use examples, real-world and personal are good.
pf/ld: treat me as lay, be convincing.
"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."
That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.
In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.
I do have a few pet peeves.
1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.
2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.
3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.
4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.
I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.
I’m open to questions before and after the round via my email.
”I refuse to answer that on the grounds that I don’t want to.”
~ H. Specter
I’m mostly pref’d on K, Th, Phil, Tricks. Probably expect that if you got me in the back, I guess.
**Conflicted to Clear Lake High School and Woodlands AH
The easiest path to my ballot (DEBATE)
Clear final speeches. Voters that link back into the way I should frame the round, be that through theory, a ROB, criterion, etc.
Not extending case fully can lead to a presumption ballot if content isn’t extended or permissibility if a way to frame the round isn’t extended. This means If you don’t extend your framework, you could lose even if you’re winning!!!
Judge adaptations and predispositions
I am a computer and will vote off anything. I do not need to fully understand something to vote on it, I just need to have a reason why.
Due to resolvability concerns, I have a few ‘default settings'. If these even get brought up in round, I become a blank slate and give no favor based on these defaults.
a. Presumption negates, permissibility affirms.
b. If an argument is conceded in the following speech, it will be treated as objectively true.
c. CX is binding.
d. Every argument is permitted.
e. If an argument is not extended, it is no longer on the flow. I do not shadow-extend.
Accommodations
If there’s a specific request given to me for anything pertaining to disability or comfort, I will do my best to comply.
If both debaters agree in wanting me to change my paradigm to fit their debate preferences, I will. My paradigm is not a set of my beliefs, but just my best attempt at being a blank slate that gives every argument a fair trial. Sometimes, even I do not like my paradigm, which is why I include this bit.
Speaks
Starting at a 29. I give a lot of 30s. I judge speaks off strategy. I am prone to boosting speaks to debaters that can make me laugh(I have a pretty crude sense of humor; my mind is a deep dark and cryptic place). If you send analytics for all speeches, I’ll give you a 29.5 minimum no matter what, no matter where.
Post-rounding
Do it, but please keep it to under 5 minutes per person. Everything else can be handled via email. I will ‘match your energy’. Private coaches count as part of the “person” of their debater, lol.
I think it’s good to have these conversations to make sure debaters can truly learn and get better after a round with me. I’m also more than happy to give a brief analysis of how I would have done things (differently), and why.
Comfortability/Experience
1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho. I used to debate non-t k affs and k negs a lot. Good for all your pess and performance K needs.)
1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring. I do not like "subpoints".)
1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it.)
1 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks... most ‘LARPers’ give me a 2 or 3 which only makes me a little sad, but I get it.)
1 - Kant/Korsgaard/Rawls/Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan.)
2 - POMO (judged it a lot in late 2023 and early 2024.)
3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care. I have recently made this go from 2 —> 3 due to judging some traumatic tricks debates that got way too messy, blippy, and unintelligible. If I do not hear it, and there isn’t a doc, it DOES NOT EXIST. I’m a 1 if there’s less than 5 tricks, and 2 if less than 10. Else, 3. Some of y’all are ruining the fun of these for me.
2 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I’ve started writing Phil prep for people. I mostly get it now, they’re just a bit annoying.)
For traditional/lay rounds
For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.
For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.
For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.
Speech
Make me laugh, make me cry. I would much rather laugh, but those are the reactions I most value in a speech round of any kind. I care a lot less about proper form or movements or the little triangle dance thingy.
World Schools “Debate”
I end up evaluating it like traditional debate. I value the things in my speech paradigm for "speaker points". Just be clear and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Heck, give me a "first, vote on x. Second, vote on y".
Congress
I should not be here. If I am here, refer to my speech paradigm. I'm sorry for myself and you, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability. I value engagement and should be treated like a parent judge.
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework (in LD & PF). Sharing docs is not a substitution for verbally presenting the material. Please avoid confusing a judge who prefers a more traditional presentation style with being lay - I'm fine with debate jargon, etc.
In policy/CX, my favorite issue to vote on is solvency and impacts that outweigh. I will vote on Topicality, but only if the Neg shows that it is such an egregious violation that it prohibits a decent debate. I consider myself a policy judge. Full disclosure: though I understand most kritiks, it is rare that I vote on them. New in the 2NC is fine as long as its on case.
Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, CX, and speech events across multiple circuits for several years and judge all events. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round. Though I certainly appreciate the sentiment, I'd prefer that you shake hands with your opponent after the round as a show of good sportsmanship than with me.
General Paradigms:
-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)
-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be
-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience
-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.
-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.
Event Specific Paradigms:
-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense
- PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.
I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.
Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.
Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.
If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.
If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.
Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.
I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.
Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.
Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.
Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].
ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN ---> sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com and miguelcarvajaldc@msn.com
context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider me extremelylay.
YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things
Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.
Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.
How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.
Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.
Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.
If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!
have fun and learn (ignore that but not really - ill tell yall in round)
(she/they)
Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.
I am hard of hearing
I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.
How I evaluate debate.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
### Speeches
If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
### Cross
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.
### Spreading
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
### Theory
If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
Big Oofs
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
The Respect Amendment
This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.
I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…
1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.
Hello!
Please speak clearly, avoid debate jargon and explain everything well.
Have fun debating!
I'm a parent lay judge, please speak slowly and clearly. I like logical and clear arguments to follow. Please add me to the email chain at aandychen09@gmail.com
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.
2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.
Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!
WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.
I am relatively new to judging.
PF: Please read slower than you would for a normal judge and prioritize weighing. I encourage you to drop arguments going into summary if you have one that is better than another. If you spread, I will give up trying to hear you. Running theory is ill-advised. I'm a parent judge.
Speech: I am a parent judge, so of course I am not going to be in the loop on all the technical aspects of your event. If you are the first speaker (or any speaker) in the room, you should probably tell me how timing will work as I do not know how you want it.
I prefer on-topic debate.
Not a fan of philosophical arguments, but will keep my opinions from influencing decisions. I'm ok if said arguments are well structured and not just used as a last minute argument due to lack of preparation.
Not a fan of spreading, however, I am for letting participants use their judgement to present their best case.
I'm ok with participants using jargon, but I prefer simple language.
I'm a huge fan of performance. Be loud, expressive, and show me that your topic is the most important thing in the world during round.
My decisions are made based on overall performance and content.
I am a parent judge and I ask for you to speak slow and clearly. I would appreciate that you evaluate and explain why your point overpowers your opponents.
Would like to see how you justify your points and counter your opponent's arguments. The emphasis is on debating skills and logical reasoning. Try to have a clear narrative and provide references / evidences in your speech, wherever required. Please do Not spread.
Have fun! :-)
third year debater
pf :)
LD/PF
- spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
- tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
- weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
- i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
- speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
- mention taylor swift and i will be happy
have fun!! :))
hi i realized i should update this!
i go to ut now but i was on the Seven Lakes Speech & Debate team for 4 years. i regularly competed in WSD, FX, OO, and DI. WSD and OO were my favorites but i think i'm definitely experienced enough to judge all 4 of those. i'm familiar with judging PF and LD but remember that i'm a lay judge (pls speak at an understandable speed)
obviously be respectful in and out of rounds. i appreciate silliness in speeches ????
fake it till you win it!
Hi I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and at a moderate pace, in other words NO SPREADING. Remember to signpost and clearly explain your arguments and extend them as well. I recommend that you lay out the ballot for me in the last speech and heavily weigh your arguments. Please maintain respect and good sportmanship throughout the round and most importantly have fun!
For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com
I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.
General
In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.
When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.
*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.
Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.
Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.
Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.
Evidence
Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.
Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.
Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.
If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.
If 3+ cards or >20% are missing an applicable author, author qualification(s), URL, or date in the written citation (to the extent provided by the original source), I believe that to be sufficient for a loss at tournaments that adhere to NSDA evidence rules. An oral citation that excludes the applicable publication year and/or author name will render that evidence inadmissible. These remedies will only go into effect if the debater(s) acknowledge them in the following speech and are themselves not guilty of the accusation. I will not evaluate these accusations technically; they are yes-no. This is not an auto-loss in rounds with panels (RRs, elims), though I would be very receptive to a theory argument. You may make theory arguments for narrower violations as well.
Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.
PF
Expect me to have topic knowledge.
Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.
Defense is not "sticky."
Second rebuttal must frontline.
Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.
Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.
Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.
1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.
Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.
Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.
That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."
The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.
I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.
LD/CX
I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.
Best for policy debates; fine for most else.
Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.
Text and function are probably good standards for competition.
Theory
I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.
Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.
Ks
Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.
Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.
Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.
Non-starters
Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.
Tricks.
Soliciting speaker points.
Misc
Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.
Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.
Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.
Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.
FLAY JUDGE
Former PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her
duong.kalina4@gmail.com <- for email chains
If you have any questions please feel free to ask prior or after the round. Not a fan of super excessive post-rounding.
 
- Tech>truth but warrant it.
- Not that experienced with judging K or theory debates. Comfortable with FWK's though.
- Fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)
- If you intend on super spreading, send a speech doc beforehand.
- Extend please; warrant your arguments. Weigh comparatively. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.
- EV ethics are important (no paraphrasing, have cut cards).
- Please signpost.
- Frontline in second rebuttal.
- My coach when I was debating was Bryce Piotrowski and I accredit most of what i've in learned in debate to him, so if you want a more in depth paradigm, my judging philosophy largely follows his so you can check that out.
I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.
Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.
Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.
tech judge
be loud
have fun ill give good feedback trust
ill give pretty high speaks as long as you try and give the best speech you can (typical average is around 28-29)
pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain
have fun and learn :)
Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered
Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time
Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)
I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.
T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.
Theory -My theory threshold is High I have to see clear abuse
DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.
Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.
Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.
Any questions please feel free to ask!
- Arguments: I'm most comfortable and prefer traditional arguments but will always hear you out and weigh things to the best of my ability. I’m more likely to appreciate arguments that engage directly with the topic, rather than abstract meta-debates, so it must be said; If you prefer more "creative" or less traditional arguments, maybe don't pref me.
- Quality over Quantity: I value well-developed, high-quality arguments more than the sheer number of points and evidence. I’m looking for depth, clarity, and logical consistency in your case. I want a focus on your argument rather than countless cards.
- Respect Between Competitors: Debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas. Personal attacks, condescension, or a lack of decorum will reflect poorly on you. Maintain a professional tone throughout the round.
- Spreading: I’m not the biggest fan of spreading. Don't get me wrong, speed is a natural thing, but I'm not comfortable with someone speaking fast to the point of super human. Keep your arguments clear and to the point. I want to understand your points without feeling overwhelmed or needing to ask for speech docs.
- Framework and Weighing: A strong framework is essential. Clearly establish how I should evaluate the round, and be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's case. Demonstrating why your impacts outweigh is crucial.
- Presentation: Effective delivery, including eye contact, tone, and composure, matters to me. Signposting is always welcome in your speech as it helps with the flow of the debate. I usually expect competitors to know timing of rounds and to time themselves.
- Disclosing: I typically do not disclose decisions in preliminary rounds. I like to move things quickly and put in feedback after in order to get going to a next round.
- Speech Rounds- Really the biggest thing I look for in speeches is the significance of what you have to say and can someone connect and relate to your message. Shock value isn't as important to me as relevance is.
Hi everyone, I did LD in high school at Plano East and qualified for the TOC three times. I now go to UT Austin!
Email chains should be sent out before round starts and 1AC should be read at start time.
Please be nice - it's so awkward for me to sit through two high schoolers making snarky remarks at each other.
I don't care what you read. Be strategic/debate well and I will reward you with high speaker points. I loved reading body politics even though it's a troll argument.
Please do not show harmful behavior(racism, sexism, etc).
Do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand.
I expect you to time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.
I will mainly have comments on my written RFD.
Have fun and good luck!
Email chain: laurenho110@gmail.com
Please send speech docs for every speech or I will dock speaker points! :)
I am a former PF debater in high school but have been out of the circuit for several years. I've judged mostly PF and have minimal experience judging LD, so at this point I would consider myself a "flay" judge. I'm more comfortable with traditional arguments and less familiar with progressive/tech arguments.
With that being said, I'm open to evaluating progressive stuff IF I can understand it. Generally, this means speak slowly, explain things as though I've never heard it before (b/c I haven't), and minimize the jargon if you can help it.
For traditional debates, I'm fine with speed as long as you're speaking coherently. I like to see weighing in both summary and final focus. Overall, I need to see very clear extension of warrants and link chains throughout the debate for me to evaluate it properly, but ultimately I will vote for the team who presents the least mitigated link chain + best weighed impacts.
I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.
My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.
Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.
It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.
It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.
Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)
I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)
has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)
and attacks the opponents case the best
3rd year debater at Seven Lakes
always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them
tech>truth
speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc
no prog args (theories and Ks)
give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy
speaks start at 27
Hi! To give some background, I'm a college student with previous HS debate experience. During High School, I competed in Varsity PF and qualified for TFA State. While I will be flowing and am comfortable with common debate terminology (turns, extensions, etc), I'm not very familiar with technical LD debate (ie. theory, kritiks, etc).
I’m a first-year out from Seven Lakes where I debated in PF.
Add me to the email chain:
If you want me to vote off of an argument, make sure that it’s in either constructive or rebuttal and both summary and final focus.
-
Tech > truth
-
I look to weighing first to know what argument to prioritize. However, you must first win your link to get access to your weighing. Meta-weighing is extremely helpful in getting the ballot.
-
Weighing should be comparative and have warrants. If your weighing has no warrant I will not evaluate it as an argument. New weighing in 1st ff won’t be evaluated. Ideally weighing starts in rebuttal.
-
Defense is not sticky
-
Second rebuttal must frontline
-
Please signpost!!
-
Speed is okay, but clarity is super important!
-
I really care about evidence ethics— don’t paraphrase or lie about your evidence. I will be very receptive to arguments that call this out.
-
If there are multiple competing claims, compare evidence (with warrants!) to break the clash.
-
If you want to run a K, do so at your own risk. You are more likely to get a ballot that you agree with i If you are going to run a K, go slow. I’m familiar with the more common Ks like cap or security Ks but if you have something more unique then be sure to really explain your warrants.
-
Saying the words try or die is not a complete argument. You must implicate what try or die means for the neg's argument.
-
Be respectful during the debate and have fun!!
Hi! This is my first time judging/watching a debate so please talk clearly and slowly.
Hey y'all!
Email: connie.jongkind@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the email chain!)
SFA HS -- '21-'24
UT Austin -- '24 - Present
*Please title the email: [Tournament] [Team](Aff) v. [Team](Neg)
Note: Speed is fine, HOWEVER, please ensure that your analytics are well communicated and spoken clearly. Slow down on tags and analytics -- if I am not able to flow it, it will not be considered. If you are spreading 10/10 of your speed, then you should be stating analytics and tags at your 7-8/10 speed. If possible, I would like to be on the email chain.
I did high school policy debate (dabbled in LD) and currently am in collegiate policy. I primarily do heavy policy, yet am extremely familiar with progressive policy debate, so feel free to run whatever you are most comfortable with. Do what you are best at, debate is meant to be fun -- I have fun judging when you're having fun competing.
Signposting is important, please do this throughout your speeches and tell the order prior to speaking.
If you say "mark the card here," please mark it and send a marked version, preferably before your opponent's next speech.
Tech>truth
Quality>quantity
Topicality
I will vote on T. On both ends, you should be debating on why you have the better internal link to fairness and/or education -- T-debate has become increasingly shallow, and I want to know why your definition best works under your standards and why we should prefer your standards, not a simple definition and violation. Explain why under your interpretation debate is better and your method is better for debate at large. Generics will not do it, I need specific examples (that preferably occurred in round). I default to competing interpretations.
Disads
You should be cutting new uniqueness often, and if you go for this strategy, the quality of your evidence will have an impact on my decision. Make your scenario clear (uniqueness and link) -- going for terminal impacts without an explanation of the scenario or internal links will not go in your favor. No link = no impact. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence. Tell me why your link outweighs the link turn, why your impact outweighs theirs (timeframe, magnitude, probability, reasonability, all that good stuff), etc. State why your DA turns the aff's impacts in the 2NR. UQ controls the direction of the link -- this goes on both sides. There is such a thing as 0% risk of a link.
Counterplans
Preferably counterplans should have a solvency advocate, and if you dump solvency advocates in the block, I give aff leniency for responses (this does not excuse messy debate). I like counterplans that have a DA net benefit, but if yours has an external net benefit, go for it! Just articulate your net benefit well, you should be answering why your counterplan is preferable to the aff. I don't like generic CPs that are not articulated explicitly on how they clash with the aff. There needs to be good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to CP solvency deficits (assuming any are made). Perm debate needs to be hashed out on both sides (please don't say "perm do both" with no explanation, that will make me sad), and DA/net benefits to the permutations need to be made clear.
Kritiks
Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates. You should have specific links to the aff. I am best for the cap K and am familiar with fem, disability, and futurity. I am semi-familiar with Baudrillard. Anything else, you need to explain to me like I am five years old -- and even if I am familiar, you should be able to explain the K as if I were five years old. You also need to be arguing specific impacts of the K, and how that compares to the claims made in the affirmative. I need a very clear explanation of framing here, and if you go for the K in the 2NR you should be writing my ballot for me. I also need a very clear picture of how the alternative functions, and why you solve the aff if you do. If you do not understand what you are running, it does not help you get my ballot. And if your opponent does not understand the K and you are not explaining it well enough for them to understand it (i.e. throwing around technical jargon or rereading tags/evidence without explaining it), this will impact your speaker points.
K v K
Note that I am less familiar with this particular style of debate, as fun as they may be. These debates can be great because clash is important -- please work hard to articulate your argument and avoid muddling the debate, do not assume the side I lean on. Don't just go for generic arguments, give examples of in-round abuse etc. or impact arguments. Explain why something is bad/should be done a certain way and frame the argument in a greater context.
Performance/Methodology Debate
I am not very familiar with participating or judging these kinds of debates, please take this into heavy consideration.
Theory
Tricks:
*running out the door*
(No tricks at all I will not be voting for them. Dumb theory is also a hard no.)
However, the less generic you are, the more willing I would be to vote on this. Theory that is done well and well-articulating could be compelling; however, same as T, explain why your standards are best for the debate space and impact it in the grand scheme. I think proving in-round abuse is important, the more specific to the round the more likely I am to vote. Generally, I think condo is good (do not abuse this).
Pref Stuff
I am best for policy v. policy debate and/or policy v. K. Most familiar with cap K and PTX DAs.
On order of preference:
1) Policy (DA, CP, etc.)
2) Topicality (!!!)
3) Kritiks (don't be afraid of going for the kritik though!)
4) K v. K (including performance)
5) Theory
Strike) Tricks
LD
Similar to all my takes above for policy, there should be an evaluation of clash and an analysis on all the fronts, from uniqueness, links, impacts to claim, warrant, impact. I evaluate the FW above all else -- if one FW wins over the other, I then evaluate which case abides the FW (which should be articulated in speeches). If FW is similar or conceded, then I evaluate the contentions. I am decently versed in philosophy, yet take into consideration my opinion on kritiks if you are going this route. Other than that, go for whatever you are comfortable going for!
No tricks -- refer to theory.
I am a lay judge, so please don't go above 220 words per minute.
junior at 7L || INFO & Extemp || sahara.k2025@gmail.com
extemp/impromptu - make sure to have 3 (2-3 is alright for impromptu) distinct points with evidence, dont rush through your words, emphasize effects/whats important! give a catchy AGD and vehicle that can be tied back to throughout/at the end of your speech.
OO/INFO - have evidence spread throughout your speech, putting your personality/humor into the speech is nice, varying tone of voice rather than droning, if a part of your speech needs emotion, put emotion! get my attention! hoping this is a topic youre interested in, so absolute formality (like some academic paper) in your speaking isnt a must. be passionate but respectful.
SLHS '25
4th-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, 2x state qual in pf, 1x gold toc qualled, broke at nationals in policy!
I mainly do pf now
Please ask me questions before the round!
Debate:Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com
TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! á•™(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ Ì¿)á•— Muchos gracias.
Performance:
-
Be NICE!
-
I heavily prefer ev>presentation- just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy (realistically they’re on the higher end).
-
Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.
-
Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.
-
I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ Í¡° ͜ʖ Í¡°Ì²Ì…)̲̅$̲̅]).
-
Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|
-
Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).
CX:
-
It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.
-
If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.
-
Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.
-
The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.
-
Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)
LD:
-
Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.
-
I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.
-
Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.
-
Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.
-
Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.
-
Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.
-
No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.
-
Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.
-
Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.
-
LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.
-
Progressive debate:
-
I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)
-
Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (Í â‰– ÍœÊ–Í â‰–)
-
Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!
PF:
Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms
-
Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.
-
Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)
-
Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus
-
No substantially new arguments in both
-
Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more
-
I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.
-
I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides if the tournament permits it.
Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!
Speech/Interp:TLDR: I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool! Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)
Main points
-
Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).
-
I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.
-
Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).
-
if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be
-
I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!
-
I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)
-
Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.
Extemp -
-
Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.
-
Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).
-
Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.
-
I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.
-
Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point
-
Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
Interp (specifically)
-
In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.
-
Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!
You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!
I've done congressional debate for four years, I'm extremely experienced in the event and have pretty much competed at every level and tournament you can think of. I have a ton of experience in the debate space. Just remember to be kind and respectful.
Congress
Speech structure:
Honestly whatever you think fits the round the best. As long as it's organized in some way that is understandable to me idrc.
Argumentation:
Know what ur talking about. I will be flowing. I do check sources (don't cap I can usually tell)
Speaking:
Everyone speaks differently. As long as I can hear you and fluency is not an issue, you get the checkmark from me. Be confident, professional, and don't be afraid to show a little personality!
^^^ I will always rank the best speaker and the person I thought did the best from an argumentative perspective. Sometimes those are the same people, sometimes they aren't.
For POs: You start at my three and can only move up to my 2. You can move up or down based on how I think you are running the round. If you make too many mistakes I'm not opposed to giving you 9s. POing is a great and strategic way to break, but make sure you are good at it pls, otherwise it def hurts the round as a whole and can impact others' abilities to give x number of speeches.
Speech Events: I first look for good structure within the speech. I look for attention given to the organization of claims and data. Proper citation of valid source material is essential to promote ethos of the speakers personal perspective. Additionally, smooth presentation of of all sources is a small technical detail I weigh. The tone of a speech should not be one note. There should be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.
Interp: I consider a structure where teaser, intro, piece is the standard flow of performance. The introduction must bridge the gap between the teaser and the primary presentation by unveiling the importance and merit of the literature. For me, this is key, even in HI i look for relevance and merit. To me, this is what sets interp apart from acting. This is also an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the selection. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed must be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and character differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. characterization, and synchronization.
Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the
purpose of the debate's intended style when evaluating the round. That is to say, I evaluate the events differently, as they each function differently and have different purposes/objectives.
I am a stickler for standing during speeches and in cross examination. This is the formal and professional part of this activity. Please do not take it for granted. The only time sitting is appropriate is during the grand cross in PF.
Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented, so long as they are presented effectively.
LD- I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. I am open to progressive arguments if they are presented well and properly. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well.
PF: I evaluate more traditionally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character (i.e. Don’t be mean), especially in crossfire.
WSD: I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional Debate: I evaluate clash as well as speech structure heavily. I put weight into participation and leadership.
In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. it was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some"thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing".
If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.
Speech-
I am a parent judge. I judge based on who is sounding the best and who’s speech I find most interesting.
Debate-
I am a parent judge.
2nd year debater in pf
make sure to extend your arguements through every speech- if it is dropped in summary and brought back up in final focus I won't consider it.
WEIGH!!!!!
any cards you read need to be implicated.
It's fine if you speak fast, just don't spread
I pay attention to cross- I like some friendly fire, but do not be mean- it will affect your speaker points.
Speaker points start at 27
Hi I'm David I debated for 4 years at Strake and have been judging for 3r
-a good standard for extending an argument in the backhalf is if a spectator came into round during summary they should be able to understand how your argument works and why its true (by true I mean a reasonable explanation for why something happens)
-weighing is important but it needs to be comparative its not enough to say ours happens first you have to explain why thats more important than whatever issue you have with their timeframe
-Ill evaluate whatever you want to read dont let me curb your enthusiasm but im not as familiar with progressive arguments so youll have to make sure you explain things well
-speed is fine but I prefer when rounds are slower the more you clear and articulate you are the better the round is
-please keep cross fire civil people are too competititve trying to get in questions and answers and people get aggressive and I dont like that I like when teams go back and forth with one question each you can follow up on your question after your opponent has the opportunity to ask you something
I dont need to be part of the email chain if yall want to do an email chain please try to get it set up before round to avoid unecessary delays
Varsity Interp and Platform Speaking
- Be respectful of everyone!
- Delivery is important! Make sure to be confident (fake it till you make it)!
- PUBLIC SPEAKING: Well structured, shows personality, humors also always a great bonus! 60% Delivery/40% Content
- INTERP: Varied vocal deliver, emotion in both both voice and face, purposeful blocking (I should be able to a have a good idea of what you’re trying to convey), and reacting to your environment and the people your character(s) interact with— not just acting.
- Feel free to ask questions before or after round :)
- AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: Have fun, and make sure to enjoy yourself!
Extemporaneous:
Callsigns
Citing sources
Purposeful gestures and pacing
Audible tone and clear enunciation
Organized structure
LD:
Be Respectful
No Spreading
I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging a round. I would greatly appreciate it if you could talk slowly, reiterate your points, and time yourself. I look at how well you answer questions during cross examination for LD and crossfire for PF as I believe knowledge on the topic is important. Please add me to the email chain at saak0126@gmail.com.
-Head Coach for Kempner. Competed in LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.
-Most important: you are here to DEBATE. Acknowledging a truly dropped argument is of course completely ok and correct if they actually did. But getting up and incorrectly stating "they dropped this, they dropped that" as the bulk of your argument and reason to win when I flowed them saying it will significantly lower your chances to win. Debate their arguments lack of merit and why yours should be prefered. .
-Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.
-Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, critical thinking, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective and engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should vote for you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing it and it's not going in the flow at all.
-Explain the why. Claims made that don't fully warrant out or explain why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having a direct link or chain of events that will lead to this actually happening will not hold weight and will likely be disregarded in my flow and decision.
-I prefer topical cases and arguments. Run what you want, but if your argument is super non-topical or a K you need to fully explain and warrant why you are running this and should win with it.
-I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.
Hallo, I'm Khoa. If you win the debate, I will vote for you :D
Email: khoanguyenle2007 dot com
Here are prefs (1 = 50/50 decision unless you're obviously winning, 5 = hell yeah):
Substance: 5
Theory: 3
K (cap, security, set col): 3
K (everything not listed above): 1
Tricks: 1
Paraphrasing is lame
Evidence Challenges are lame
Speed is aight
Flex Prep is aight
Weighing is cool
Collapsing is cool
Warranting is necessary
Extensions are necessary
Grand cross is not necessary
Nothing new after first summary
It's only on my ballot if it's in the summary AND final focus
Lastly, studies have shown that when people are given food/drinks, they're more likely to be happy and might give out higher speaks during debate rounds :)
Houston Memorial 2018 – 2022, WashU 2022-2024
Texas/nat circuit, moderate success
jase1ilas@gmail.com - send speech docs (to everyone in the round)
Did LD PF and CX. Spent most of my time in PF.
Default theory, topicality, K, case. Never really ran Ks. Read Theory/T frequently for a PFer.
Tech > Truth to the point where alot of ballots I hate filling out bc I feel unethical.
Read extensions, weigh, and voters - meta-weighing is how you win my vote on substance.
I default presume aff.
Don't flow cross.
I have high standards for evidence, read evidence ethics even if there is slight abuse. ie: if you have a card, author quals (if relevant), date accessed, publisher, url, date published etc. and your opponent doesn't. If you read evidence ethics I expect you to also read something else. I expect to see that you have cut a whole case at minimum, that meets the standards of evidence that you set.
Easiest ways to win my vote:
- read theory that has actual substance (disclosure, no paraphrasing, evidence ethics), will evaluate friv theory dependent on who your opponent is and how frivolous it is (ask in the round)
- meta weigh
- if you extend well and your opponent doesn't I'm going to vote for you 90% of the time (I will just be like this offense is the only one extended, I'll vote for it). If you extend a turn you have to extend your opponent's link chain if they don't (it doesn't have to be a great extension just good enough)
- signpost
I am a parent judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I can only judge on the points that I can understand.
I am a traditional judge. I would like to see the consistency in your arguments throughout the debate.
Please speak clearly, and do not go too fast! You'd rather get your point through me, not just incomprehensibly throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).
Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do a bit of research on the debate topic before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!
Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date.
Please track your prep time accurately. I will not track prep time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you spend. Do not steal prep.
You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com.
I am a parent judge who prefers traditional structures for debate.
To best win my ballot: avoid spreading, provide contextualization for more specific topics, give a clear roadmap, signpost consistently throughout the speech, and thoroughly extend your key arguments to the end. I will flow the arguments you explain, unless I don’t understand. It’d be best if you could go over the main clash points and really prove why your side won.
I share the same opinions as Vishal Surya and Arnav Mehta.
I am open to both policy-centered and critical arguments. Above all, be kind and respectful.
This is my second year volunteering as a parent judge and I am humbled by your talents, your dedication, and your hard work in preparing for every tournament.
Debate: - Please speak a little slower than the radio announcer reading the disclaimer of an ad. I like being able to follow your contentions while I make notes for reference as it helps me frame and judge your arguments. - I expect every contention to have well-researched and data-supported evidence. I try to stay abreast of current events and issues and will verify your points if necessary. Unsupported or erroneous arguments do not work well for me. - Please ensure that you fully understand all technical terms and terminology you use in your speech. Please do not reference terms or points you cannot explain during cross. - I also expect you to pay attention to your opponent's arguments and ask intelligent and relevant questions during cross. I also would like you to treat your opponents with respect. Being too offensive or defensive towards your opponents during cross will be counted negatively.
Speech:
Extemp/Info/Oratory: - I listen to the news daily and am quite up-to-date with current events. Please make sure your arguments for your topic and sound and well-researched. I like statistics but only ones that you can source and support. - Be passionate and persuasive on your topic - educate me and win my vote for your argument. HI/DI/Prose/Poetry/POI/Duo/Duet - I welcome and embrace every topic you choose for your speech as they all tend to be subjects that are dear to you. Since you will have a deep emotional connection to your topic, I would like you to share that with me - be dramatic, be emotional, be bold. - I like speeches that are performed with every part of your body - voice variation, facial expression, body movement, dynamics, sound effects, and a lot of emotion. I want to be immersed in your world, your passion, your story. Don't read me a story, tell me a story. Your speech should educate me, make me laugh, make me cry, or make me angry. - I enjoy seeing your creativity and firmly believe that it is the key element to a passionate and moving speech. - I am neutral to trigger warnings. I appreciate that some topics contain sensitive content but I will not be offended if you don't tell me ahead of time.
Hey y'all!
I'm John Lutterman, an assistant coach for Seven Lakes HS, where I used to debate, staff for Public Forum Boot Camp, and a student at UT Austin.
Please add me to the email chain!
also add
If you have any questions on this paradigm, I'll be happy to answer!
TL;DR
tech over truth, please weigh with warrants
I'm good with speed, just be coherent
send docs before speeches, and send carded evidence
For PF, general/niche things
Tech>>>truth
I'll evaluate stuff that stretches the truth, but the further out it goes, the lower my burden of response is.
Strong links win the round, but weighing tells me which link to prefer.
Weighing should have warrants when introduced
2nd rebuttal has to frontline
Signposting is IN for 2025! Please do it!
mostly unrelated, but if I'm in a position where I must presume (both teams don't have any offense or weighing), then I default to the team that spoke better, since this is the other portable skill debate has aside from research. "Speaking better" is having more fluidity, coherency, and giving more intuitive arguments. (Please lord don’t let it come to this ;-;)
On evidence and evidence sharing:
-
Send cut cards when introducing evidence with what you read highlighted.
-
Please send docs and evidence in either word or pdf format
-
For bad evidence, I won’t down a team for it unless it’s like every card. Usually I’ll just drop it if the argument is made.
-
If you are going mark a card mid-speech, please make sure to mark it on your doc, then resend the doc after you finish.
For speed
I have no preference for speed - speak how you feel comfortable. However, please try not to go to policy/LD spreading speed because I want to be able to do your arguments service and catch them all. If you do end up going a lil' fast, then I'll say "clear." You'll get two of those. Coherency>>>
For Theory
I am open to theory, however, theory can get convoluted rather quickly.
-
I will not outright reject frivolous theory, however, the more ridiculous it is, the lower my burden for response is. However, please don't use friv theory to showboat against other teams - especially those who may not have a full grasp of theory yet. Examples of friv include but aren't limited to: shoes, formal clothing, hairnets (my bad), Sitting down (@Tharoon), technology bad, evidence bad, and author quals. Basically anything that doesn't really have an in-round abuse that affects the substance of the debate.
-
Also, I'd rather have a good debate about the reasons for why your norm should be preferred rather than the "blip-off" many teams like to have. Like, you shouldn't lose the entire round because you didn't say the words "counter" and "interp" in your summary but the ideas were present.
-
When it comes to Competing interps vs reasonability, I'll side with the team that gives me the best warrants to prefer.
-
when it comes to RVI's I'll prefer the team who gives me the best warrants on which side to prefer. Also, if you're on the theory-receiving team and lose that you get RVI's, that doesn't cost you the round, but you can't win the ballot by proving their shell false.
-
I like clever "we meet's," but my burden for response is rather low for the really silly ones.
- I'm a big fan of using emails on wikis as a defense tactic against theory
Stuff you should know:
-
I’d prefer for interpretations to be written down
-
RVI's are independent reasons why the theory introducing team should lose for introducing theory. Counter interps are NOT RVI's, but instead another shell to be weighed against the original shell
For Kritical positions
I understand how a K works, and how to evaluate it, but I didn’t encounter or read too many during my time competing. I’m not the most experienced with K’s, but all should be well. I just want to be able to give you proper feedback.
I only ask that you pay special attention to explaining your arguments well. It'll make it easier for me to understand (and for you to win ;D)
For phil
I'm pretty unfamiliar with these kinds of arguments, but if you warrant it well I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability.
For Big Questions
I'm very receptive to the "invisible dancing leprechaun" argument. Ask Tyler Crivella for clarification. Please.
(Those who know: *skull emoji*)
Have fun, enjoy yourselves, and learn something new. I hope this was all helpful.
Peace out,
John Lutterman
Hello, my name is Sam.
I currently go to school at UT Austin. I did speech and debate for four years at the high school level. I mainly did Lincoln Douglas, being a two-time qualifier for TFA state and also a UIL state qualifier for 6A LD debate. I also did public forum and extemporaneous speaking.
Paradigm for LD
I mainly did traditional debate when I was active so that is what I am most familiar with. I'm not opposed to policy arguments or progressive elements in LD; feel free to run them! I ask that you not run tricks.
I have a hard time keeping up with spreading but feel free to do so if that is what you and your opponent both want to do. If you do spread, try to be very clear when reading taglines and the author for a card.
Parent judge. Don't run any crazy arguments in debate unless you know how to back them up. For speech, I go mainly off of speaking ability, but I will be listening to your content too.
Hello, my name is Falak Malik. My son participates in PF Debate so I understand the format of speeches and times. Please keep track of all times. I cannot understand any speech over 200WPM. Please keep all speeches coherent and clear, you are not as clear as you think online. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGN POST AND GIVE ROAD MAPS BEFORE SPEECHES AFTER CONSTRUCTIVE!!! I am a lay judge after all. You can control crossfires with respect, otherwise disrespect = speaker points. I am okay with open crossfires as long as they do not become abusive and that one partner does not answer / give questions every cross. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY KRITIKS OR THEORY AND KEEP IT FLAY AT MOST. I understand most arguments as long as the link chain is clear and not messy (i.e. do not link recession with nuclear war and claim Starr 15 is the best card to exist)
I do WSD but have a lot of experience in all the other debate events.
Not a huge fan of spreading but if you are going to AT LEAST make your key arguments clear to me.
I prefer when people can keep their own time but if I need to do time signals my go-to is 3 down fist at grace for speech events and then for debate events, I give 15 seconds before I ask you to wrap it up.
I do not tolerate people giggling at their opponents while spectating however if you make banter in the round that's fine just be respectful.
Please do not scream at me!! I promise my ears work fine. And no excessive knocking on tables and clapping during a speech, it's unnecessary.
Make the round easy for me, tell me why to vote for you instead of letting me decide between you and your opp.
I'll give critiques after the round if you ask but that does not mean I'll disclose the round.
parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)
speech + congress just do normal stuff lol - lay events should b for lay judges :D
debate - ld + pf
- adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
- cross is flowed :)
- warrant EVERYTHING!!! most people don't know why student loans or smth --> nuke war (it doesn't lol) but point is like debate should b abt explaining so ur judge should like... be able to explain ur arg
- when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
- don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure
- oh and speaks start at 28
have fun!!!! ???? it's not that deep so don't treat it like it is!!!!!!!
(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my mom thats lowk so funny)
email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com - add it to the email chain if yall are setting one up
PF/LD
novices just know I'm fine with most arguments but I'm gonna put more emphasis on presentation compared to other stuff and just give me reasons to prefer your argument over ur opponents - also dw about having to adapt to me I'm cool w judging whatever kind of round yall want
Tech >>> truth except for exclusionary stuff
any homophobic racist sexist or other similar rhetoric is gonna get an automatic L25
Abusing novices and being exclusionary in general also gets an auto L25
I'll pay attention to cross but only consider arguments if they're brought up in the next speech
Speed: I'm fine up until ~250 wpm, anything above that I'm gonna have a harder time flowing
Obviously extend, I have a somewhat higher threshold for extensions but if something is conceded it doesn't need too much of a warrant
First I look to framing, then the link debate, and then weighing. If you have access to your link it's a probable impact
Familiarity with different things in debate from a scale of 1-5 (1 being the best, 5 being the worst)
Policy/Larp - 1
Topical Ks - 3 (mostly stuff like Cap or Security - I don't really understand things outside of those two realms)
Nontopical Ks - 3.5
Phil - 4 (I don't understand much besides the basic stuff behind Kant)
T/Theory - 2.5
Tricks - 5 (probably just don't run tricks they're kinda uncool)
Things I like
- Signposting: Makes it easier for me to flow
- Weighing: Earlier the better, meta-weighing is pretty cool but regular weighing is also cool. Don't make too much of a big deal out of probability weighing and don't use timeframe or probability as a way to make new responses that should've been in rebuttal
- Evidence comparison/indicts: These can usually help you win a close round
- Line by Line analysis: it makes going thru the flow way easier
- Impact turns are funny asf but make sure u know what ur doing
Speaks-wise I'll be pretty lenient just don't like curse or do something insanely stupid in round and you'll be fine
Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 3x TFA qualifier, 2x GTOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech
tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.
don't be disrespectful
frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.
extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.
go for less and explain what you go for better.
time ur own prep and speeches
u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)
Arguments made in cross can be binding if there is a violation
Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys
progressive Args
Love em, I ran Latine for Seven Lakes CM and understand a good amout of K literature, however do not assume i know it all, you should explain your position well anyway
Philosophy
Ive learned a good amount of philosophy, and would enjoy a good Phil round. As always explain well.
Phil authors i understand: Kant, Hagel, baulliard, nitzhe, varoufakis, and frier.
speaks
i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)
overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd
CONFIDENCE is KEY!!!
Tips and advice:
- Make things interesting!
- Be loud and clear.
- Manage your time.
- If you forget something make it up and say it with CONFIDENCE!
- BE NICE and RESPECTFUL of others' opinions.
YOU GOT THIS!!
Lay judge, it’s my first time judging debate. Speak slowly and clearly; do not spread. I don't want to be bored, so keep me entertained. Tech > truth. Please signpost.
"novice judge" and that you prefer not to "spread"
I have competed in congress my self, but I am familiar with what is classified as a strong argument in other events as well.
In Debate, I look for:
-tone variation (only congress)
-refutation/clashing with other side or other debators (addressing their concerns, explaining why your side is the better world and wins the debate especially if you give a late round)
-I like unique arguments if you are able to stand your ground and explain how that argument applies well to the debate
-confidence even if you are dealt a bad set of cards or have to argue for a hard to argue for side
-participation when possible (if you’re in congress, I expect you to ask a good amount of questions when possible unless you are forced to write a late round)
-strong arguments or strong enthusiasm in your argument
-credible and non biased sources (no Wikipedia or made up sources of course)
-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)
In Speech events, I look for:
-tone variation/emotion
-consistency in your performance
-passion
-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)
-for duo/duet, a strong cooperation and synchronization between both actors
CX PARADIGM:
DO NOT SPREAD, I am a parent judge, if you spread I will not flow. It is as simple as that. If I cannot follow your case due to you spreading, I will set down my pencil.
I am a lay judge as my son tells me. I have practical knowledge on the topic, but make things clear to me before the debate.
I will judge the round primarily based on the rebuttal and the team work of each side.
Establish Clash within the round early in the Debate.
I will judge the round as I see fit, be respectful to your opponents, THIS IS STATE.
Hello, I am a new Parent Judge for PF who understands, but is definitely not an expert at Debate. Here are my preferences:
Impact is important to me. Clear and reasonable arguments with good support will bear more weight. I will judge on clarity and argument presentation.
Being a new judge, I might not understand the nuances of PF. Please do not present Theory or expect me to vote off a Shell during my early judging rounds.
Speed is good. I will interrupt only if I think you're going too fast. If I interrupt, please slow down a bit afterwards.
I'm a note taker so I might not be looking at the speakers but I am listening and writing as you speak.
Nicky Mukerji
Debate (LD, PF, etc.)
Please don't spread. I won't be able to keep up
I will judge you on how well you speak
I won't judge based on theories, K's, etc.
Congress
Emphasis: 79% speaking & 21% content
Please clearly sign post your arguments
Don't "frame" people for saying things they didn't
Don't straight up lie in arguments
Be funny if the topic allows it (please)
Speech
I will judge you on how well you speak.
Your goal should be to move me, inform me, and be unique.
Extemp
I will judge you on speaking and content equally
Your goal should be to inform me while sounding professional and natural at the same time.
Be funny if the topic allows it (please)
- If you use language that is NOT appropriate in a classroom, you will automatically get minimum points.
- I am easily convinced by "common sense", logical arguments.
- I value clarity of the argument over theoretical constructs.
- I value convincing arguments over stylistic elements.
- I value strength of the argument over aggressive, lack of substance arguments
I am the head Speech and Debate coach at Awty International, and have been in the debate scene for over 8 years now, mostly doing CX or parli.
For Congress, IEs, and PF:
I did extemp all four years of high school, and congress occasionally. I judge primarily based on speaking style, but I give bonus points for well-articulated analysis that challenges my baseline knowledge of the topic. I don't like the over-enthusiastic style they're teaching at camps, and look down upon walking across the room to get to your other point. Take two or three steps, don't make me turn my head. Other than that, go wild.
If you scream at any point, and the building isn't on fire or there isn't a legitimate medical emergency happening, I'm giving you last in the room. I don't care how critical it is for your piece, if you scream, I'm putting in earbuds and not listening to the rest of the performance. I don't need you triggering my sensitivities.
Special Note for debates: I have ADHD. If you're spreading analytics that isn't off a flow or your noggin, I need a word for word doc. If I can't see what you're reading at 250+ wpm, I'm not going to catch it, and you're going to whine when you get the L because I dropped a double bind or something. If it's off the flow or extemped, you need to go 70% of your regular speed.
For debate at local non-bid prelims:
I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers. Want to be uber-competitive? Cool. That's fine. Go to bid tournaments or show me that you are capable of adapting to those who either dont have the experience or opportunities you do.
For TOC bid tournaments and local non-bid outrounds:
I'm truth over tech. Run whatever you want, but be forewarned. I consider myself a policy maker first. I have a degree in PoliSci with a minor in International Studies. If you're doing analysis that draws upon faulty IR theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it. However! If you can show me you know some semblance of IR theory or can articulate to me why your scenario is real-world and/or more real-world than the opp, I tend to be far more receptive.
Reasonability is a sufficient answer on T for me given the arg makes sense. If it's late into a topic and someone reads T on a camp aff or something obvious, I'm much more receptive to reasonability. I'm also a strong believer in RVIs. Topicality/Theory is you telling me the other team broke the norms of debate. You better make sure that violation is real and isn't just a throw away strat.
Don't run disclosure on small schools. I come from a debate team that had, at most throughout all 4 years, 15 members. 4 of us did debate. It's not fun going against armies of card cutters who try and force you to divulge your only advantage. I'm still iffy on disclosure in general, and find theory debates often boil down to my own personal biases. Do with that what you will.
Here are args that I get lost on, find difficult to flow, or feel unsure about how to vote on:
theory
one-off framework (I need a doc with all your impacts and analyt. If I dont have it, I can guarantee you I won't be writing them down.)
Any kind of phil
K-Affs whose only real spill-up is a singular card that says your unique identity k-aff is key to policy making.
High-level afro-____ kritiks
Kritiks I read in HS:
Queer illegibility
Security
Cap
Fem Materialism
Disability
I have yet to vote on a K-aff this year in LD or CX. I'm simply unconvinced that running non-topical k-affs is generally good for debate.
I prefer probability over timeframe and magnitude. I prefer structural violence over extinction, but will vote for extinction if warranted and weighed properly.
Lay parent judge.
For interp and speech events, speaking is most important.
For debate, content outweighs speaking
She/her pronouns
I'm an experienced Judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, PD, Congress, Impromtu, extempt., e.t.c.,). I have been actively judging debates for different tournaments over a year now. I have judged with, Winter Championship, Seven Lakes Debate, Loyola Special Scrimmage, Winter Wrap Up, Coolidge Cup Online Qualifier, Havard Intl., VDA Spring Tournament, Forensics, George Town Fall and many more.
I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise. I basically evaluate debates on how clear and concise the arguments are, the depth of the arguments as related to the topic, as well as how sound, unique and innovative the arguments are.
I take notes of key arguments, counterarguments, presentation skills, ability to engage with opponents and critically respond to questions during the cross-examination sessions. I put in writing everything I observe about each speaker and these observations usually helps me in given unbiased judgement.
I value how sound the argument is in terms of Quality (how credible and reliable are the sources), Relevance (how well do the sources support the arguments), Sufficiency (Are there enough sources to support the arguments). I also consider respect, (how respectfully do the debaters engage with each other) and engagement (how engaging and persuasive are the debaters).
I could describe the argument I found most persuasive in my previous debate rounds to be arguments that were constructive in nature , the arguments delivery was audible and clear, there was a good teamwork between the side of the debate, respect for each other was maintained, the arguments were supported with claims and evidences. The team with those qualities won the debate.
I judge each debate based on the arguments presented, not personal opinions or biases and I also ensure all participants are treated equitably, regardless of their style, background, or reputation
As a Judge, I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, evidence, and presentation skills. The team that wins the most points across these aforementioned criteria will win the debate. In cases of a tie, I usually consider the strength of the opposing team's arguments and evidence.
Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com
Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.
Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.
If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.
*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.
1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.
2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.
3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.
4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.
5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.
6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.
7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.
8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).
William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain, President [2009-2010]
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
2017 Team USA: Collegiate - C squad lead Deputy/Member
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Head Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Head Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) February to August 2024 - Interim Head Director
Sugar Land SpiderSmart (Missouri City, TX) September 2024 to Present - Assistant Head Director
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.
Email chains: fbcdebatecollective@gmail.com
Iff you reside in Fort Bend County, you may also email with your school-assigned account for consultation inquiries. This is a business email, don't abuse it.
Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear. I use .1s often when available, so if your speaks look unusual, I probably told you why on the ballot.
Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.
Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).
Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.
Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.
Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.
Been asked to clarify what types of arguments qualify in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks (no substance arguments). You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate which is done on a theory level. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow; you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without topic-specific link(s) to any ground.
L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but there should be a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate; easiest way to explain this, in the words of other coaches, I "like weighing". That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or my threshold for what's inconsistent to your on-case gets a lot higher. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms nor will I care how many non-interactive voters you put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional, progressive debaters often make the mistake of thinking they automatically win my ballot when their opponent debates traditionally. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.
C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill what's inherent (burdens, stock issues); it's fine if it's not explicit, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive. Have a cogent storyline on-case with a consistent stance, doing otherwise will make my voting murky, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's usually not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep, it helps tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring when you just go through the motions and aren't making strategic decisions in how you play the game of the flow.
PF
This was the first format that started my debate journey in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate, look on how to make an analytical framers' intent argument. If your opponent(s) are abusing framer's intent, call and substantiate it devoid of jargon so it weighs how it's supposed to as a ballot issue; theory runs differently in PF because complaining isn't enough to win on norms. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. In order of frequency, crossfire activity/decorum/momentum are my most common ballot tiebreakers. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.
Congress
My rankings typically: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third; these do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers even though I way errors heavily, but have a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I have coached state finalists and a national finalist, I don't split hairs on arbitrary persuasive gimmicks like other judges might. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.
WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but parliamentary formats were by far what I was best at on the college level since it didn't exist when I was in high school. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win multinationally. This format is THE definitive way to debate in the world, so your rhetorical representation of the American perspective should be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate globally (however, that doesn't mean you must devoid all Americentricism in content). As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards big picture, I'm a tab judge through-and-through. Your strategy score is determined by the skill you apply content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and consistent storyline down the bench. Generally, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is crucial because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolution more than voting issues.
***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***
There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate even when American teams are winning, largely because we have Americentrist adjudicators in the back of rounds is what the success is indicative of. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want to frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. Subjectivity in this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally posits non-novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.
***rambling over***
Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.
Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.
You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.
Updated 01/15/2025
Parent Judge
Hi I'm Elaine Pham, excited to be your judge! I spent three years in Seven Lakes Speech and Debate and competed mainly in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, DX and DUO Interp which I went to state for. I have some experience in worlds as well.
For debate events, I do not like spreading.
For interp, I look for a solid plot line that is engaging just as much as developed characterization. For OO/INFO, I look for solid impacts. Why should I care about your topic? Do not depend on your boards, I should be able to understand your speech without them. In general, keep your energy up, especially at the start!
I don't tolerate any hate speech or discrimination. Do not be rude or distracting to other competitors.
Lastly, tournaments are long! I keep docs on every round I judge but if I miss a ballot by accident or you want me to elaborate on my critiques, feel free to message me at elainecpham@gmail.com.
Churchill 2025 update: Sorry I didn't update this before prefs, but the important information (how I judge/experience/etc) hasn't changed so it doesn't matter as much. Also this topic has energy transition/EV connections which is super cool because I work in EVs :) I can yap about being an EV nerd forever. I love this topic so much it's so cool.
Here is a bunch of old files - my hope is that there's some small schooler who has the motivation to sift through and farm whatever they need from here. I also turned on comments from the link so if you have a question about something you can just leave a comment or email me and I'll answer.
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
he/him/his
Quick Prefs:
Phil - 1/2
Theory - 2
Policy - 1
Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(
K - 3
Paradigm Summary: I'm a senior at University of Houston - I've coached, cut and prepped really in-depth policy prep, drilled intense theory rounds, done my homework on phil since it's interesting to me/I liked to make frameworks for fun in HS, and almost all of my old debate friends were K hacks so I'm pretty tab but I think I have the least experience in K lit. I haven't judged for a while so I may be a bit rusty (last time I judged was TFA '24 and then I had a big gap before that).
I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.
Phil
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable
- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans
- default epistemic confidence
- don't read truth testing if you're not reading tricks, it doesn't do anything for phil. Comparative worlds doesn't mean policy - it just means you're comparing worlds. You still need a FRAMEWORK to determine how you compare - and that's the framework. please don't read truth testing if it doesn't do anything.
Kritiks
- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse judges than me
- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links
- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)
- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.
- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.
Policy Debate/"LARP"
- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.
- Weighing, weighing and more weighing
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
T/Theory
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)
- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
T-Framework v K Affs
- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)
- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
Tricks
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Speaks
Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.
Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously
I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks
Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.
You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.
My favorite debates that I've judged so far:
JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022
Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)
JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022
I am a parent judge.
Debaters:
Please speak slowly and be respectful during the round. I am not the best at taking notes. i prefer you to time yourselves, but I will be keeping time as well.
Please do not use debate terms, please remember to signpost and tell me what side of the flow you are on. Please remember to tell me why you won, I will not do the work for you.
Please do not run any K's, counter plans, theory, etc. I will not flow this and I will not understand.
Have fun and good luck!
I value clear and concise communication. If your arguments are difficult to follow or if you're spreading too quickly, it may affect your speaker points.
Please ensure that your case and responses are well-organized. A logical and structured presentation will make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.
I appreciate well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence.
Quality over quantity: I prefer a few strong arguments with robust evidence over a multitude of weak points.
Treat your opponents with respect, and avoid any disrespectful behavior or language. I appreciate debaters who engage in a spirited but collegial exchange of ideas.
Hello. I am a parent judge who really enjoys watching good content and seeing very good speakers. My son is also in debate.
Hi, I am a parent judge.
Keep debates grounded. Presentation is REALLY important to me. Explain things in layman terms.
howdy,
former HS/Collegiate competitor
I judge quite a bit
- treat others the way you want to be treated
- I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
- if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not there's an L waiting for you
- FOR PF debate!!!- I don't flow off the doc, I only look at it for evidence (only if you tell me to, also no email chains for me..)
- in any debate event... if you don't provide a FW or R.O.B I will default to your opponents
IE's -
MS/HS - you do youu!!
Collegiate - you know what to do
^ very big on binder etiquette
Congress -
no rehash
its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech
stay active thru round for high ranks
clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect
PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last
^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you
direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!
don't lie about evidence
PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...
love a good framework or Role of the Ballot round
no email chains for me, either google docs, nsda doc/drive or speech drop - if not oh well
if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it
evidence practices are pretty bad in PF, should you notice it LMK in speech and lets see what we can do
no speed/spreading in PF, talking fast is ok tho - speed or spreading and imma have a problem
tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two
Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks
Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess
^ gotta explain it , if not I am not evaluating
resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that
impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated
good luck going for a technical knock out
the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof is
paraphrasing is a BIG NO, read actual cards/tags
I like Disclosure Theory.... but if your wiki is BS and or not fully filled I will tear you apart
^ As a judge I know the rules better than you , don't preach them to me for this T
what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L
when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date
stop going over time !!
MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'
LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother
if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad
^ not gonna say clear
tech or truth?? somewhere in between
P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you
Trad - I'm an ok judge
K - HECK YEA!!!!!
LARP - I like it... but can go either way
Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/other T
^ auto strike!!
^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike
NGL - if your case is blippy I am probably gonna look for everyway to vote against you
CX - LOL
unless it's TRAD I won't judge
Worlds - I expect to see clash
don't paraphrase evidence
no speed, this needs to be conversational
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them
not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many
I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me
style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine
don't try a PF take on this event
the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose
Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!
Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !
This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.
"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol
Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?
I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.
SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.
I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.
On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.
If agreed upon by both debaters, I would like to be on the email chain for documents in the round → [vriley1@kleinisd.net]
My name is Vanessa Riley or Mrs. Riley; you can call me “judge” in round.
I’ve been a sponsor for Klein Oak’s speech and debate team for around 3 years. That being said, most if not all of my experience lies in speech events like Poetry, Prose, Humorous, and other theater-adjacent events.
I am unflinching on Truth > Tech and should be treated as a parent/lay judge.
Debaters should do everything they can to make arguments that have coherent, sizeable, and well-explained impacts and defend those impacts with comparative weighing done in their rebuttals. This should be true for both your value/criterion and supporting contentions. Heavily err on the side of over-explanation if you are adamant on reading a philosophical framework that isn’t consequentialist or largely based on the premise of maximizing some sort of well-being.
I’m not well-versed on the topic or common topic arguments so keep excessive jargon to a minimum. I’m never going to be comfortable evaluating “progressive” and/or “circuit” arguments. This means no Ks, theory, obscure philosophy, or tricks. Anything you are intuitively uncertain about reading in-round is probably something you should avoid.
You need to stay under ~250 wpm. It's more important that you are clear than slow. I’m not at all accustomed to spreading. The closer you are to speaking like you’re giving a TedTalk, the better.
Speaker points should average from 28.5 to 29.5. I have zero tolerance for any “-isms” (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.); this will always result in an L25. To get higher speaker points, be persuasive, craft a simple narrative, and make the round easy to evaluate.
For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.
Parent Judge
Speak well and clearly. Be yourself in terms of persona, so many times I see people try to deliver rhetoric when I know they are people who genuinely do not mean it, if rhetoric ain't for you then don't do it, crack a joke, make a clever analogy, use good vocabulary, there are so many tings you can do make urself stand out instead of hitting a quick "behind every statistic is a story." I personally enjoy making people laugh so I always try to throw in a joke or 2 and am personally biased towards good humor, if the joke you give is terrible I won't dock u but that's insane aura loss. EVEN if you have no personality and you think you are banal by nature, be clear, I always value a down to earth approach over this idea that
This event isn't a debate event, it isn't a speaking event, its a group discussion, it is legit a socratic seminar, you are trying to tell people who obviously cannot and will not change their stance reasons why they should, the best discussers are always the ones that are simple, clear, and most importantly kind. I don't mind funny banter in between friends and speakers, I personally have been apart of numerous instances of that so feel free to make a jovial jab at ur friends if its topical and actually makes sense and lightens the room of the round. , but don't just stray a random dude in the round to gain a laugh or u will get dropped cuz that's distasteful.
Evidence is a supplement to ur speech. I don't care if the card word for word says "This legislation will save 6 billion people" if you do not make me believe that it will. If someone gives a speech with 1 piece of evidence but gives really really good warranting and logic for the rest of the speech than I won't hold that against them unless they are speaking early. Cards aren't everything, however, if you play your cards right you can do really well(see what I did there playing your CARDS right). Lastly, give CORRECT arguments, there is no such thing as an argument that won't fly in congress, if for any reason the bill clearly hurts people or helps people, than it is a reason to fail and pass respectively, dont try to mold a different argument from a different bill to fit into the one ur debating.
POs : I have POed before I appreciate POs that are fair(if there is no preset you must create a random list in front of the round and leave a link to that random list to me and the rest of the chamber. If I am your parli, the "random" precedence will be a list generated by me. The idea of "pick me up" or "drop ______ he's a threat" is a sorry way to debate. If I notice repeated instances of biases you will be moved all the way down to the 9, trust me I know all the methods bro. You start as my 3, every slip up u make minor or major will drop u one rank, BECAUSE you are starting at my 3. For clarity, a minor mess up is calling on the wrong speaker and then correcting it immediately and calling the right speaker, a major mess up is calling on a wrong speaker and letting them give a whole speech over someone else. Even if you don't get POIed, I will know because I'm a omniscient entity.
Feel free to call me Stacey, I'm a current public forum debater for Bellaire.
Email: ashih2008@gmail.com (questions, add to email chains, etc.)
General:
Speech and debate can be very stressful, so go as fast as you want and run whatever arguments you feel comfortable with. That being said, if you're going to spread, please send docs. I’m also familiar with most debate jargon, but not so much with progressive arguments. If you’re going to run theory/Ks/obscure arguments, pleaseerr on the side of oversimplification. Quality > quantity and explain each argument with claim, warrant, impact.
Tech .......>........................ Truth
Flow ..........>..................... Lay
Pre-flow before the round. (will dock 0.2 speaks if we don't start on time bc of that). I'm pretty generous with speaks otherwise -- range from 27.5 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.
Be respectful and make strategic choices.
PF:
- Weighing: Don't just say "We outweigh on probability, etc." Compare impacts/links and explain why it's important.
- Cut cards > paraphrasing
- Analytics with very well-warranted impacts > Statistics with no warrant
- If something important is mentioned in cross, make sure to bring it up in the next speech. (I don't flow cross)
- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep)
- Please time yourselves and opponents, 10 second grace period for speeches.
- Signpost please + extend warrants through summary/final, not just card names.
- I am against judge intervention—give voters in final
- No sticky defense (everything in final should mentioned in summary)
LD:
- Not familiar with LD, please explain any terms/acronyms.
- Will judge similar to PF.
All other events:
- Other debate events— I will value good argumentation over rhetoric.
- Speech— Please keep it interesting and engaging.
- Basically, treat me like a lay judge :)
For specifics, ask in round. Have fun and do your best!
Congress:
Congress isn't entirely one genre of speech and debate it's a culmination of just about every style. I don't lean toward favoring a lay debater or a flow debater. In this event, you're just trying to convince the judge to rank you whatever means you go about doing that is 100% up to you. However, if you're able to balance both the flow and lay appeal you're going to rank higher in my ballots than someone who's just good at one or the other.
For PO's: Run the round as smoothly and quickly as possible. I'll grade you on how well you can keep the round on track and avoid disruptions. The more the parli has to intervene(within reason, I won't fault you for asking for the specific rules of the tournament) the lower I'll rank you.
Local/TX Circuit: Please Clash
LD: I don’t have a preference on which style of LD you choose to do. Whether it’s modern or classic is fully up to you I will grade each style equally.
PF: I find PF strategy really interesting I’m more of a flow judge but I can ealso be influenced by the lay although not as strongly.
Hey everyone! I am a parent judge who has been judging for over a year now, I judge both speech and debate. You should treat me like an average lay judge.
Debate preferences-
- PLEASE NO SPREADING
- I like clash and calling out
- Please be respectful to each other
- Humor is good if purposefully used
- READ THIS EARLY ON- DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PARADIGM IN ROUND
Speech preferences-
- I care about both presentation and content
- I will be checking sources- do not lie
- Please make sure your voice can be heard
Debate is supposed to be a friendly and respectful place. No disrespect will be tolerated.
Hi everyone! I'm Aarya Sivaraman (he/him) and a current college student that competed in interp and public speaking at the state and national level. Oratory was my one true love and the event I did the most! Most of my expectations for public events are generally the same, but for any events I judge I expect:
- You to be respectful of everyone, no transphobic, homophobic, or racist comments will be tolerated, respect pronouns
- Project and enunciate well when you speak (even when spreading)
- Be confident, avoid filler words, use your time wisely
Tech>truth for my debaters!!
I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!
It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.
With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.
With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.
With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.
With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.
In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.
You've got this!
Sonya Smith
"olivia"
student from SLHS
I. General Philosophy:
- I value clear, concise, and respectful communication.
- I judge based on the quality of arguments, not the quantity.
- I am open to various styles and approaches, but I expect strong evidence and logical reasoning.
II. Debate Specific:
- Burdens of proof: I expect the affirmative to establish their case and the negative to challenge it.
- Theory: I am open to traditional theory arguments, but I will not vote on frivolous or abusive ones.
- Weighing: I appreciate clear explanations of why your arguments are more important than your opponent's.
- Evidence: I value credible and well-sourced evidence, such as academic journals, expert opinions, and reliable statistics.
- Impact: Explain how your arguments make a real-world difference and why they should matter to the audience.
III. Speech Specific:
- Delivery: I evaluate vocal variety, clarity, eye contact, and overall stage presence.
- Content: I assess the depth of research, clarity of organization, and effectiveness of argumentation.
- Originality: I appreciate unique perspectives and engaging approaches to the topic.
- Engagement: I value the speaker's ability to connect with the audience and evoke emotional response (if applicable to the speech type).
IV. Additional Notes:
- Feel free to ask me questions during the round to clarify any expectations.
- I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.
V. Preferences (Optional):
- Speed: I prefer a clear and understandable speaking pace, but I am flexible within limits.
- Visual aids: Feel free to use visual aids, but ensure they are clear, relevant, and not distracting.
Hi, I am a parent judge having an experience of judged in World Scholars Cup Global Rounds at Manila and Dubai. Do not spread, do not run theories, live action role plays and kritic as I may not be able to comprehend it. Speak in a conversational pace.
Johnathen_standifer@roundrockisd.org
But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward.
General:
Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school. (mostly LARPing/K in LD)
I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it. Don't just read a trick in the constructive and drop it and expect me to flow it. extend that stuff and make it a voting issue.
I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.
LD -
Prefs -
Policy/K - 1
Theory - 2
Phil - 3
Tricks - 5
Did policy and Ld in school.
If you want me to vote on something, tell me to vote on it. I don't want to have to do the work for you, the easier you make my ballot the more likely you are to pick it up. the more you're relying on a random response in the 1ar to be flowed and evaluated by me, the less likely you are to win. I'm not that good on the flow, just being honest. Collapse into a main argument or two, if you're asking me to do the work on evaluating between multiple meta layers, tell me how to do that work and make it easy for me.
STEALING THIS LINE because I love it: Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate
Read K's and Theory, I'll evaluate anything as long as you justify why I should care about it. I'm familiar with all the stock K's, if we're running anything fun just be sure to signpost it well and give me some solid voting issues. Make sure to hammer out why the theory arguments are actually important in the round, don't just run it tell me to vote it and leave it.
I'm fine with Policy based arguments, its the phil based ones i'm less familiar with. Fine with the basics (rawls, Kant, Hobbes) When we get outside of those, I'm totally down to evaluate them, just hold my hand a little bit more.
Tricks I'm just less familiar with. not saying I won't vote for them, just that i might....miss them? try me I guess.
PF - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. you read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously - this is one place i'll drop some speaks
Cool with K's and Theory in pf. Let's have some fun.
Policy:
Tab judge - Tech > Truth, speed is fine. If we are running any advanced K's give a good overview on how it relates to the round, i'm probably a little less familiar with them. share all evidence. Theory shells are fine.
Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a single bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.
MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite. If you're the 7th person to give me an argument and add nothing new....I don't care how good the speech is, my brain will be off.
Be competitive. this is a competition, not a friendly game of "What is every single person in the room's opinion on the topic"
Extemp - I'm usually rating structure and content over performance, If i'm not staring you down don't feel bad i'm writing about your speech and evaluating your argumentation. Time balance is important, don't try to inflate your speech time by having a huge 1st point and tiny second and thirds, etc. Performance aspects are important, but are usually second to content for me.
Interp - I am not what I would consider an interp coach, but I have coached multiple state/national qualifiers and a state finalist over the last couple of years. As a musician, I tend to look for variety in interp events, contrast in volume, tone, etc. blocking is...not something i'm great at feedback on? but I know it exists! cutting is always important to me. A well performed piece that doesn't make any sense isn't going to do well (I'm looking at you HI)
OO.Info - I am an English teacher on the side, so I'll be watching for general writing conventions more than performance aspects. (although I will 100% be watching for those as well) My comments are going to be more on structure and ideas for improvement. these events are interesting because it is YOUR writing and your voice, I enjoy them.
Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!
Please make sure your cameras are turned on.
Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.
In general, I believe that the most important objectives of debate are facilitating clear communication and logical reasoning in a civil manner. Therefore, the clarity and organization of arguments are enhanced by the general civility and respect displayed towards both opponents and audience.
In CX debate, I tend to consider STOCK ISSUES (topicality, inherency, impacts, solvency, disadvantages, counterplan) when making a decision about whether the affirmative or negative side wins the debate. In general, I weigh the quality of the argument as more important than the quantity of the evidence supplied. In my view, the quality of an argument can be negatively affected by "spreading," especially when the rapid delivery of evidence interferes with civil discourse and effective communication.
Therefore, if the negative team wins one of the stock issues, then they will normally be declared the winner. Similarly, the affirmative team may lose minor arguments in a round, but if they win all the stock issues, they should win the debate.
In LD debate, I value a strong value/criterion framework, especially preferring arguments that are clearly linked by the debater(s) back to the chosen value.
slhs junior
main event: pf
You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh (and have fun)
if you want to set up an email chain --> anikasud9@gmail.com
add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com
I've been doing PF for three years
Tech> truth (IK judges lie abt this a lot but if you say "the sky is green" and your opps don't respond to it then it's true)
Analytics are kewl if you have warrants.
I'm comfortable judging theory but Ks should be run at your own risk.
Cross is binding but I don't really pay attention to it.
Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot, sign the ballot for me
You have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read
Expected behavior
Don't be disrespectful to your opponents.
I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially during online tourneys.
Hold each other responsible for speech time/ prep time.
speaking
I'm okay with speed up to a certain extent but spread at your own risk, if you want to check how fast you can go, read a couple cards in your block file and I'll lyk if I can comprehend what you're saying.
If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.
20 = You did something racist/sexist etc
25 = You were a big jerk
27 = Below average speaking wise
28 = Average speaking
29 = Pretty good
30= Really good round strat
My paradigm is the rectangular opposite of Bryce Piotrowski's.
FOR NOVICE NIGHT:
debate however you want, just be clear and go slow and try your best! gl!
I compete in LD at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit. I also dabbled a bit in PF and CX.
Please add vishalsurya0704@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear. I will try to be the best judge I can.
This paradigm is inordinately long; a brief skim should help you find the most relevant sections to determine your adaptation strategy.
TL;DR/General: I am fine with any strategy, but the best arguments are both technically strategic and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Patently untrue or overly esoteric arguments require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. Speed is fine but slow down when reading tags; be clear no matter what. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. I appreciate adjudicating debaters who are innovative in both strategy formation and execution.
Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The best constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I evaluate substantive arguments probabilistically: it would behoove debaters to utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if executed properly.
As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge of my age group. Extending the warrants, rhetoric, and context introduced in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. If its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, I will scrutinize evidence after the round, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that. Well-formatted evidence will be rewarded with excellent speaker points. Most analytics are incredibly shallow, but clever analytics can be persuasive.
I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. However, the burden of proof always comes before the burden of rejoinder. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out. If I have to, I will default my presumption in favor of the side that defends the less appreciable departure from the status quo. This is usually the negative in debates about the normative truth of the resolution, the side that violates the interpretation in theory debates, the affirmative in topical critical debates, etc.
Everything below is a non-exhaustive explanation of my views on specific arguments:
I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. I am not nearly as dogmatic as many other judges who arbitrarily presuppose a didactic framework for which case turns are legitimate. Especially in an activity where ‘technical’ debaters are unable to coherently explain why nuclear proliferation prompts immediate escalation, why economic growth assuages warmongering sentiment, or why global emissions circumvent adaptation, these arguments are excellent ways to force scrutiny onto the most uncomfortable corners of the constructive. I do not have any particular, similarly arbitrary ‘thresholds’ for how rigorously you must respond to these arguments. As with any other substantive strategy, evidence comparison, risk calculus, and judge instruction will win the round. Generally, if there is a well-established evidentiary base grounded in scientific and historical research behind your offense, then I am more than amenable.
I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are strategic. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. In a similar vein, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably invite intervention. As a side note, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach. I default epistemic confidence over epistemic modesty.
I am fine with debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to each part of the shell. Frivolous theory justifies frivolous speaker points. Harder presses on reasonability and ‘drop the argument’ can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense, and I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'; be willing to defend the violation.
I am at least vaguely familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding Capitalism, Biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), Security, International Relations (Feminist IR, Race IR), Settler Colonialism (Tuck & Yang), Disability Studies (Mollow, St. Pierre), Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism (Wilderson), Fiat, and Death. I enjoy reading critical literature in my free time and actively think about these arguments the most, but I am far dumber than you might think.
You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my decision. Regardless, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal doc/backfile-botting. Corybantic bouts of incomprehensible philosophizing are difficult to flow, and strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating.
The best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize said criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Critiques that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive appeal and offense. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long, so (as with all arguments) critical debaters that simplify the round’s central controversy into a few lines of synthesis are significantly more likely to win.
I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives deploys the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly addresses the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear indication otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on the literature being cited and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof), with the latter informing its theoretical proximity to ‘counterplans.’
Finally, do not homogenize critiques. Not every critique functions as a ‘DA’, necessitates winning ‘out-of-round/ballot solvency’, criticizes ‘fiat’, or impacts ‘marginalized groups’. The distinction between ‘pre-fiat’ and ‘post-fiat’ is contrived and meaningless. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Read from cut cards and disclose when reading these arguments anyway. Impact turns, when morally applicable, are welcomed. I am waiting for debaters in this event to realize that strategic articulations of the ‘permutation double-bind’ and ‘links are non-unique’ are close to unbeatable.
Evenly debated, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, promote a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments, nor am I particularly less capable of adjudicating them, but I find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacy that is predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am relatively agnostic on questions relating to the best ways for debaters to respond. I have no major preference for fairness, clash, and skills-based impacts and am agnostic on questions relating to the relative persuasiveness of counter-interpretations, impact turns, impact comparison, etc. Well-researched method debates are highly encouraged, but I still do not understand why affirmatives do not double down on the permutation (and why negatives so carelessly disregard it). Finally, strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating (copied from above). Many PF judges abandon the line-by-line and offense-defense paradigm in these debates; I am not one of them.
I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a fallacy.
You're better off saving your 'tricks'—single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable—for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph). The same can be said for ‘independent voting issues’ that are neither independent nor voting issues.
Speaker points are a reflection of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency. Be a good person.
For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from David Lu, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.
I do pf.
Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .
Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.
Have fun! :D
Treat me as a lay judge, coming from a 20+ years of technology consulting and management background.
Debate: Don’t talk fast, clarity is very important to understand your points. Explain your arguments clearly and consistently, so that I can make a fair judgment. Don’t be rude or disrespectful to other party, respect each other throughout the event. Be confident in your arguments and make sure they are backed-up by data/facts and most important thing don’t forget to have fun!
Speech: Presentation, content of a speech and fluency is a key factor. Be engaging and have good points that flow well. Don’t rush if you are running out of time and be confident. Come prepared with great material, analysis, looking forward to seeing you in action with great presentation, humor and creativity.
Contact Info (please add me to email chain):
Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org
Facebook: Neville Tom
Paradigm:
Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.
Main things:
1) Don't do any -isms
2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches
Bach Tran (he/him)
Seven Lakes '23
UT '27
Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com
If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com
-------------------------
tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics
If you think you can win without flowing, strike me.
Tech > Truth, but I won't vote for incomplete/unwarranted arguments, and arguments that the tabroom/higher authorities forbids me to. What you choose to read and my own biases are largely irrelevant to the RFD if you explain your stuff and tell me what to do. Weighing, judge instruction, and evidence/warrant comparisons are key to getting my ballot.
Very few issues are ever matters of yes/no by default - as such, I think you should debate everything in terms of relative risks and probabilities unless you are willing to invest time in asserting otherwise. The only thing where this does not apply is whether a team violates a theory interpretation.
Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments - out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. Egregious -isms in round however will result in an L and the lowest speaker points I can give (read: be kind and a decent person).
I like and will reward creative and bold strategies (e.g., heg good against the K) and/or excellent research & knowledge generously with points. You are playing a dangerous game asking for 30s.
Please be on time and minimize dead time. The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that.
Feel free to ask questions in person or via email.
Evidence
- Speech docs/ev sharing are almost non-negotiable - please refrain from sending stuff that aren't verbatim documents.
*2025 update: google docs = auto 25s. Don't try me.*
- Speed is fine, unclearness is not. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with no docs at top card speed, you should strike me.
- I flow on paper, straight down, without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts
- You can insert rehighlights if they are short and you explain the implications. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.
- Ethics issues will stop the round - W30s if I think you are correct, L0 otherwise. Instructions from the tabroom will of course override this.
- Please tell me to read cards - no "read X card," yes "read X card it doesn't assume [thing]"
-------------------------
Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible.
The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. You should also strive to minimize the amount of buzzwords, for they will not substitute proper debating (or lack thereof).
Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on the analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.
It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.
K Affs: the 1ac should defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (it can be more). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms)
Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.
Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff.
-------------------------
PF Stuff
Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.
Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.
Please stop having prepositions as taglines
Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.
Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners
Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other (e.g., "MAD checks" is not a complete argument).The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous.
I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing arguments instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.
-------------------------
Random Pet Peeves
- "Speech begins in 3,2,1..."
- "Speech begins on my first word"
- "Can I take prep"
- "The moment you affirm"/"try or die" (do real weighing pls)
- Card text in email body
- Sending "rhetoric"
I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.
Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.
Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!
Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.
Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!
Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.
Hey y'all! My name is Mehak and I am currently a freshman at UT Austin. I graduated from Seven Lakes High School, and was on the team for 4 years. My experience and expectations are below but overall, just try be confident when you yap, confidence is key!
General Rules:
- Don't be disrespectful. Anything such as sexism, racism, homophobia, etc will NOT be tolerated.
- Have fun with it! Even though you want to succeed, make sure you enjoy what you are doing, and don't stress. I promise you, it's never that deep!
- Feel free to reach out to me at mhktumpa@gmail.com if you have any questions, want advice, or just want to chat!
Experience:
- Public speaking co-captain for 2 years, Platform Speaking(OO and Info)
- Extemporaneous Speaking(Domestic) for 4 years
- WSD for about 3 years
Events:
- Public Speaking(Info/OO): I have done both of these events so I know the layout and format. For time signals, ask another competitor because I would rather pay attention to your speech. Humor is always great. Make sure you have your speech memorized, but if you forget it keep on going! Try to pay attention to your speaker's triangle and be intentional with hand movements. For Info, having cool or fancier boards will not automatically give you a higher rank, and try to explain the significance of WHY learning about this topic is important. For OO, there should be a clear problem, impact, and solution, and try to explain WHY this topic matters, bonus points if it's about why it matters to YOU.
- Extemp/Impromptu: Just be confident. Of course, your content should make sense but even if you forget the analysis, just keep on talking like you know what you're talking about. When it comes to content, PLEASE make every point under your umbrella answer as distinct as possible. Use evidence and logic to walk me through why your speech answers the question.
- WSD: my fav event(if done properly)! please stick to the topic. don't forget about POIs. don't knock every 2 seconds, only when the speaker says something life-changing or at the end of a speech. WSD can get VERY muddy at times and it is very frustrating when you divert from the topic we are actually debating and into something else, the team that wins will most likely be the one with the most clean and clear flow. If the debate is getting stuck at a point that is useless and doesn't add to the debate, the best speaker will be the one who moves it forward. for each speaker role, first speakers: lay out the debate and set the tone for your side, second speaker: refute and then rebuild if there is time, third speaker: rebuild and then weigh both worlds, fourth speaker: summarize the debate and pretty much explain what points you won and what is the path to the ballot on your side. another good way to be clear is to signpost, walk me through where you are. remember the key principle your side is defending as well as how it affects the stakeholders. USE EXAMPLES AND LOGIC, i need evidence and/or reasoning to believe your side. Models need to be laid out VERY clearly and concisely, but more importantly explain WHY the model/counter-model is needed.
- Congress: Be clear and concise. Don't have a full rhetoric speech, it should still have logic. Answer questions with confidence, and make sure to move the debate forward with your speech.
- LD/PF: treat me as a lay, and don't spread too much or too fast
debate:
i am a senior debater/team development chair @ seven lakes
i primarily debate PF
i coach at sljh and bdjh :)
Tech > truth - tbh this statement doesn't mean much, in the wise words of one bryce piotrowski, "There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate." but if holds value to you do what you will with it.
You need to weigh. - I feel like some debaters (tbh including me) get caught too much up into the round and forget to make valid weighing claims. Do not spit out buzzwords, comparatively weigh your args v. theirs.
Clash needs to be in the debate - show me how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Implicate - This is the most important thing. Do not just read evidence or make statements, I need to know what you mean and more importantly why I should care. I genuinely will not know how to evaluate the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. In short I need warrants, every speech.
Quality>>Quantity - of arguments. Analytics are great if they are well warranted and implicated - in fact I'd prefer them over random buzzwords and cards for which you can't explain the warrant. Also I love evidence indicts - don't be afraid to call out bad ev in the other team - just do it right.
Some small things:
I, like most judges, am lazy. If you want me to vote on something, say it in your speech CLEARLY and tell me the impact. I will not do the work on the flow for you.
I will give you like 5 seconds of grace time to finish your sentence for a speech, once your speech exceeds longer than that i will stop flowing.
speaks
speaks range from 28-30. If you give me good rhetoric throughout the round you will get higher speaks.
I love it when you are funny in round - make it entertaining you don't have to be so serious 100% of the time.
overall have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable so don't ruin it for yourself or anyone else.
feel free to ask questions about the topic, the round, your speech, etc. i'd love to give you advice.
speech:
Extemp and Impromptu are based on your speaking ability. A good flow and cadence will work well for you. Also do not fudge evidence.
If you make me laugh I will up you.
TABROOM RAHHHHHHHH
Hi!! If you’re making an email chain, add me to it (davievdebate@gmail.com)
My pronouns are she/her. Call me “Davie” or “judge.” I’m a college freshman and I will feel weird if you call me ma’am.
TLDR:
TLDR for people too lazy to read the details: I’m Davie (she/her) and I debated at Seven Lakes High School in PF, LD, and CX. I’m fine with whatever you want to run, just actually explain your args. Tech>truth but I will complain about blatant untruths in my RFD. Speed is fine, but check with your opponent first. I love evidence sharing!!! Do it please!!! And if you’re in CX, that’s non-negotiable!! Any isms will get you downed (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc) so just try to be respectful. Feel free to sit or stand!!! Just do whatever you think is best for you.
How to Increase Your Speaker Points:
Be organized!! Give a roadmap and stick to it. If you move away from it, verbally direct where to flow whatever it is you are saying. Speaker points are mostly based on strategy/organization rather than “speaking style” to avoid any potential bias affecting your points, but that’s not a reason to disregard clarity and intelligibility. Spreading is fine, just please check with your opponents first because it can be an accessibility barrier.
Some things I’m picky about:
-
(CX only) If you don’t make an email chain and send speech docs/do a file share of some kind, your speaks are going to be -1 from whatever they were otherwise going to be. I’m so serious about this
-
Don’t steal prep time. It does not take more than 30 seconds to send out the speech doc after you have finished writing it. If you’re waiting for it to send, lower your computer screen or take your hands away or something so I can see. Your “off the clock road map” should not take more than 15 seconds. Your breath before you start speaking should not take 10 seconds. Prep stealers are the thief of joy (my joy, specifically).
-
Don’t paraphrase, don’t clip evidence, don’t make up cards, etc. All of your cards should cut either the full article or the full relevant section for complete transparency and there should be a link back to the original so it can be checked it you want.
CX:
-
This topic seems cool but I know nothing about what’s being run/any of the args so don’t assume I have topic-specific knowledge.
-
I’m personally probably better at judging policy affs because that’s mostly what I read in HS, but you can read whatever you want so long as you explain it. I’ll vote on basically anything, so long as I get it and follow along. If you read a more complicated K aff, you might want to over explain the basics in the constructives to make sure that I get it so that the debate can be evaluated as fairly.
-
I LOVE topicality. If their aff is non-topical, PLEASE read T. Especially if the aff is blatantly non-topical, my threshold for voting on T becomes very low. Topicality debates are a dying art form. Make sure your shell actually has a good definition, violation, standards, and voters. The violation should be specific to the aff. Also, please answer T well. A conceded T shell means you’re basically cooked so long as it's extended unless something wack happens.
-
Condo is probably good but if you want to argue that it is bad, be my guest.
-
Read things that make sense together. Like yes, please “test the aff from multiple angles” but maybe don’t read cap K and a disad with “econ collapse” as the impact because it feels weird.
-
Ask good questions in CX and reference their answers in your speech. CX is binding, but you do need to bring it up because I’m not going to do the work for you.
-
Case debate is underrated and if your 1nc is just 8 minutes of case turns and stuff, I’ll be so happy. In all serious though, love case turns, love impact turns, love actually interacting with the material of the 1ac outside of those 8 minutes. Please do it.
-
CPs are good, DAs are good. The more internal links you have to reach an impact scenario, the easier it is to poke holes in.
-
CPs should have a plan text and it should be read when they’re first introduced!! That should not be something I have to say but you’d be surprised.
-
If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I want it to be as educational and accessible as possible for all the participants, so please don’t be afraid to ask for something if you need.
I’ll make my pf paradigm later lol but in case I get thrown in a PF/LD round, read whatever but don’t paraphrase and please extend things.
Assume as if I don't know anything about the topic, and keep your position clear and help me understand through your contentions/arguments.
Any disrespectful behavior shall take away points.
I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides both a platform and an audience for you to realize that your voice matters. I am honored to be but a small part of the process where you speak your truth to help change the world.
I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class three years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.
Now for the paradigms you seek...
DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. Which means I do not want to read your case in a shared drop file- it is your job to make me understand your case verbally. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.
Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a flow judge with a dash of Policymaker thrown in, which is why nuclear war should rarely be run. But feel free to not put me in a box, and I'll try to not put you in one either.
I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.
SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!
INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresh each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.
Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)
I am a parent judge. Please do not speak too fast, and please speak clearly. I prefer clarity of speech over speed.
I am a parent judge please speak slowly and make your arguments clear.
Parent judge
Hi! I'm Joy, currently debating for bellaire in pf
joyxia123@outlook.com
Debate however you want to. This can be a very intimidating activity, so just do your best! I don't want to inhibit your ability to debate at your best with specific nitpicks.
That being said, I will probably be better at evaluating the round fairly if you send speech docs, initiate clash, and weigh. Any complex arugments (dense ks, phil, etc.) should be dumbed down a lot for me.
I consider myself tech > truth. Speaker points will be based off of articulation and overall performance. Every argument made including extensions must have warranting. Please be efficient in sending cards.
Ask me anything else in round. Remember to be polite, try to make the round fun, and good luck! :)
My paradigm
Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.
Debaters should:
Speak slowly.
State the resolution, as that is what is being debated
Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.
Speak very slowly.
Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.
Be nice to each other.
Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.
Speak slowly.
To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.
Speakers should:
Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.
Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,
Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.
Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.
Interpers should:
Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.
Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?
I do my best to judge the performer/performance and not the script.
Debate
TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.
If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.
General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.
Style Preference
Email chains/Cards
Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.
Flow Quirks
First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.
Speed
SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.
Timing
Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.
Speaks
I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.
Argumentation
PF Specific
Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below
Framework
If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.
Kicks
I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.
Kritiks
LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.
PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.
Structural Violence
Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.
Theory
You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.
Tricks
Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.
Speech/Platform
General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).
Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.
Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.
Interpretation
Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.
General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.
HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.
Congress
My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:
- Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
- Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
- Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
- Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)
Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.
Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.
Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:
- Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
- Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
- Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
- Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?
Presiding Officer
To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:
- Follow precedence with few mistakes
- Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
- Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking
For LD:
Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.
Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.
Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..
Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.
Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.
Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.
IEs:
For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.
On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.
On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.
Debate:
- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.
- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.
- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.
- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com