Tabroom.com

Groves Falcon Invitational

2023 — NSDA Campus, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Narjes Alkhafagi Hire 4 rounds None

Zane Aridi Dexter High School 2 rounds

Laith Assaf Brother Rice High School 4 rounds None

Sofia Audet-Abdulnour Hire 1 rounds

Luke Bagdon Detroit Country Day School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

do you, and do it well
don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene
don't misgender me, or your competitors
do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging
of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment
apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.
'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.
going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos
i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Brandy Bar Saline MS None

Jacob Cameron Boer Lansing Eastern 2 rounds None

Andrew Brock Avondale Forensic Team 2 rounds None

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 4 rounds

Griffin Campbell West Bloomfield High School 4 rounds

Timothy Carder Saline MS 4 rounds

Owen Carlson Dexter High School 4 rounds

Luke Carreon Dexter High School 4 rounds

Brooke Cesarski Kent School 2 rounds

Don Ciaravino Brother Rice High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:34 PM EDT

This may seem obvious to you, but to many debaters, it is not. There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution. Signposting is a must. Speaking fast doesn't endear you to me, nor does it impress me. I think it's a tactic used by unprepared debaters who don't think the judge is really listening. Additionally, please don't try to appeal to my emotions and tell me that I have a "moral obligation" to support your side. No, I don't. You have an obligation to successfully argue your side and should not ever ask a judge to insert personal feelings into a RFD.

I also do not like "off the wall" contentions that are merely used to attempt to sound different relative to other debaters. You must stay wedded to the resolution. I also do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Let's go back to the first paragraph. It's not my job to link for you. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Having said that, if you do your job, but your opponent doesn't respond to that claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop). Anyway, if I can flow, it's a good thing for you. You should be doing it too while you listen to your opposition. Make your links clear, please! Ensure that your links are connected to something the opposition actually argued (you wouldn't believe the strawmanning that I have heard over the years).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage and I won't tolerate it. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that I have access to this and that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives. The "utilitarian" framework is possibly the most popular one, but I would strongly prefer it if you don't just drop the term and then move on...you should be very specific as to what you mean.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Don't just casually say it once and then never have any ties back to it...similar to how you should approach the framework. I've heard some really good non-unique impacts, but if you're going to try and attack your opponent for having a non-unique argument, make sure you're actually correct. Again, I really don't like buzzwords and using terminology just to use it because you may think the judge is only listening for them won't work with me. When you're levying an impact in your arguments, ask yourself "how probable is this?" You would be surprised if you stopped and thought before you spoke.

Rebuttals: a little bit repetitive here, but you have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech...usually here. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked and, likely, lose. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. If you wait until summary or second cross, that's a problem for you. Rebuttal speeches are meant to do exactly that; they are not meant to make new arguments, nor is final focus for that matter. Don't do it.

Off-time Roadmaps: I don't mind them and if you need to verbalize what you're planning on doing, that's fine. Keep them short please.

Oh, one more thing: don't be top heavy in your overview. What I mean by this is please do not spend lots of time on your own arguments but not answer (or shoddily answer) your opponent arguments. Please don't do this. You can give me a re-cap, but make it fast. For example, during summary you should prioritize answering the key arguments addressed by the second rebuttal speaker in addition to giving me a brief overview of your own arguments...just ensure that there is balance here.

Beth Luzann Cole Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:29 AM EDT

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Christopher Cole Skyline High School 2 rounds None

Zoz Compagnari Avondale Forensic Team 4 rounds None

Deshon Corbesero Hire 4 rounds

Ryan Corso-Gonzales Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 3:16 AM EDT

Ryan Corso, He/Him/His

Ph.D. Student, Graduate Assistant at Wayne State University

Email: ryancorsogonzales@gmail.com

Updated Fall 2023

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California and a one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji Lange and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville; I was previously the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, where I coached LD, Parli, IPDA, and Speech. I'm now a Ph.D. Student my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Neoliberalism, Assemblages, and Post-Dialectics. I am a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach at Wayne State coaching NEDA and Policy. I have competed in Parli, LD, and IPDA. I am comfortable with policy, speed, kritiks, and theory.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, or fascists args tho) just be prepared to justify your actions and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran every policy arg in the book, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple world's paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Theory:

Theory should consist of a clear interp, and a unique violation (that explains the operative nature of that specific interp), standards that frame the offense and impacts. I don't default to theory being A Priori anymore and will evaluate it under either DTD or DTA, you tell me. RVI's are always illegitimate.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link for me to even consider voting for it. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

Final notes:

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. ex: religion based kritiks

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person. This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will for an in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible.

*DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Good Luck, Have Fun!

Madison Damus Campbell Hall 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 7:00 AM PDT

Hi I’m Maddie and if you’re reading this I’m probably your judge! I competed at Campbell hall for 6 years where I did MSPDP and PF. I am currently a freshman on the USC debate team doing policy.

Please include me on the email chain: madisondamus04@gmail.com

Debate in General:

you don't need to give me an off time road map just tell me if your starting on aff/pro or neg/con
Pre-flow before the round or even print your pre-flows, don't waste everyone's time doing it in round
If your gonna spread make sure to include me on the speech doc/email chain
Be respectful; I will not tolerate ANY forms of discrimination
Don't dismiss the validity/existence of structural violence args - if you don't know how to engage with them try linking in instead
Don't mis-cut or make up evidence
I am not a fan of debater math and probably won't buy it

PF:

tech > truth
Extend links, warrants, and impacts
SIGNPOST: tell me where to put things on my flow
Going through the line by line will help you win my ballot
Defense isn't sticky -- Don't extend things in final focus that weren't in summary
WEIGH PLEASE. As a tech judge this is extremely important and could make or break your round. Don't make me weigh for you.
Quality > Quantity of args
Second rebuttal has to frontline
Paraphrasing cards is lame but its fine ig
Structural violence args should have some sort of framework
Don't extend through ink - please engage with clash
Don't miscut evidence
Don't post round me
I don't really care about any content mentioned in cross unless its a binding question. Just be pretty respectful and make it entertaining.

Theory/K’s:

Don't read frivolous theory you’ll probably lose
Fine with paraphrasing + disclosure theory
Fine for the most part on K’s if ran well (run at your own risk)

Parli:

Be funny
Engage with clash
Address your opponents arguments
signpost and go through the line by line

LD:

I have the least amount of experience with this format so tell me what arguments to prioritize and why
unless yall are debating T I don't need to hear definitions I think they can be a waste of time
I look to who's winning the framework debate (if framework is read) when casting my ballot
please signpost

Tanveer Deol Hire 4 rounds

Ramesh Dhandapani Potomac Debate Academy 4 rounds None

Sydney Dinser Hire 4 rounds None

Jumico Evi Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:44 AM PDT

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

Gabriel Frank-McPheter Gabrielino High School 4 rounds

Praveena Gorantla Potomac Debate Academy 4 rounds

Lisa Grzywacz Cranbrook 4 rounds

Dan Hansen Fort Atkinson High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:30 AM CDT

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

Jennifer Heaton Saline MS 4 rounds None

Amir Hetherington West Bloomfield High School 4 rounds

Saad Hossain Hire 2 rounds

Ian Hwang BC Academy 4 rounds

Akash Jaggi Hire 4 rounds

Brenna Johnson Hire 4 rounds

Brit Johnston Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Six and a half years of competitive debate experience lol, 3x Nat Qualifier, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it.

2. Keep the round fair and safe, if I notice anything out of the ordinary it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time but I won't call you out if you go over, you should know and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

Now specific thingies:

First, I'm okay with and can follow spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

Policy-

like disads and I LOVE counterplans. If you present me a really good counterplan, I'm more inclined to vote for you. That being said if you're the aff you have the burden of truth, please prove to me why your plan is the only solution. I'm fine with T but theory and K's are not my favorite. At the end of the day though, weigh your impacts please. I'm a big fan of impact calc and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated in policy and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also fine with speed but a tip for novices, if you don't actually know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me a voter, by the end of the round if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to, the summary and final focus are the most important speeches and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's lives easier. Signpost please, makes everyone's lives easier. Cross is for clarification, use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

LD-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me please. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against traditional debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now on prog debate,I don't like tricks, anything that will make a round abusive is automatically a no from me. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you, your plan needs to solve for all of them and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. On the neg, I love turns, CPs and DAs are cool and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. While I don’t think I’m a T hack, I have definitely been known to vote on T but if you go for it, you have to go all the way. Like I said previously I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes aff K’s), I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge. Overall though, if you're able to prove that the aff doesn't solve for the stock issues, the round will likely flow in your favor.

SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important ;)):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

Jason Jones Brother Rice High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution.

Signposting is a must.

I do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Linking is a must. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. Make your links clear, please! So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Failure to provide clear links is a good way to lose on a particular contention.

If your opponent doesn't respond to a claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Your impacts tell the judge why he or she should care. Don't just casually say them once and then never have any ties back to it. Make sure to directly link your impacts to your contentions. In close matches where both teams make valid well-presented claims, decisions are ultimately made on the power of the teams' impacts.

Rebuttals: You have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech. This is called the burden of rejoinder. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked.

Off-time Roadmaps: I find them helpful especially if you speak fast. I will try my best to flow all arguments so anything that helps me do that appreciated. That said, keep them short and don't attempt to squeeze in any off-clock arguments.

Karsten Keller Dexter High School 4 rounds

Joe Kelly Lansing Eastern 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 5, 2021 at 8:14 AM EDT

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Hired judge

Current role at institution – Hired per tournament

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 10 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? If you don’t put me in another paradigm, I will default to trying to choose the best policy option. That said, I'm familiar with policy and kritik debates.

Purpose of Philosophy

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

It has been a few years since I debated, and I will recommend that students adapt in a couple ways:

1) Slow down. I believe the ink on my flow will be maximized if you speak at 85-90% of your top speed.

2) Look at me. I tend to be rather expressive. If I’m not writing something down or if I look confused, it may help you if you elaborate on your position.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I don't count flashing /emailing as prep. I will keep track of time.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

If you could email me, that would be great.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think it provides greater transparency and clarity. I will try to flow your information during the round, and so, I won’t always be able to read your evidence while you are. This is still a speech activity.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I may read evidence if there is a question as to what the evidence says. If evidence is uncontested, I will probably not read it after the round.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

I may provide commentary about it, but I will try not to let it affect my opinion of the round if it was not brought up.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

If it is contested.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality

I generally think it is a voting issue, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Theory is great. I'm generally persuaded to reject the argument, not the team.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff

I think there are some pretty good arguments in favor of the aff having a stable advocacy.

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Sounds good.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Could you list out some situations here?

For example, “I prefer a DA and case debate.”

Counterplan, Disadvantage, Case is a pretty good debate. Line-by-line refutation is important. This is just what I’m most familiar with. I’m open to other debates as well.

Jae Kim Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 6:21 AM PDT

NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO BALLOT

now on a serious note

hey i'm jae! im a first year out and competed at torrey pines in san diego (torrey pines kt/tk). debated pf nat circ for the first three years of hs and coached my senior year. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, ndcas, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments. i now debate policy at UC Davis and coach pf.

debate is all about learning to get better, don't be afraid to use me as a resource
if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime.

email: jnkim@ucdavis.edu

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jae.kim.503645

defaults:

- comparative worlds

- competing interps > reasonability

- theory/t > k > case

- drop the arg > drop the debater

- no rvis

- fairness > education

- text > spirit

- ethical certainty

- presume first speaking team

round stuff:

- debate is a game, play however you want to win

- i flow/tabula rasa

- i disclose and will also disclose speaks if you ask

- read and wear whatever you'd like

- add me to the chain (same email above); send case/ev docs before round; use email chains, not google docs

- flip/preflow before the round. fast evidence exchanges. i don't flow anything over time.

- you can do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

- do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways

- i am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. pref dont spread. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half.

- i'm pretty generous with speaks bc screws suck :(

- i don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. i view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. it's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- asking questions after the round is fine. light post-rounding is fine. be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, i will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.

- you can swear in round. don't make it excessive though.

- absolutely nothing remotely _ist; L20

- everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive. defense is never sticky.

- every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

- signpost PLEASE

- weigh weigh weigh. link comparison. warrant comparison. i vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact (clean pieces of offense). i like voting on turns but they must be weighed and have impacts. pre-req weighing is the best but do it right.

- collapse in the back half and do metaweighing

- high threshold for extensions. i don't acknowledge blippy extensions on anything. link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and ff.

- in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. if these criteria are not met, i will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link.

- if you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

- i believe debate is a game with educational aspects; that means i will literally vote off of anything from death good to a game of chess if that's the consensus rotb

- regardless of paraphrasing, you MUST have cut cards or you're capped at max 26.5 speaks for being cringe

- if a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, i’ll give them double 30s

- if your opponent has no path to the ballot, invoke a TKO and you win with 30s

i hate intervening. as a result, you can lie, read false evidence, etc. if it is not called out by your opponents, i will not do anything. in my view, my role as a judge is not to be a referee nor an educator (which is a coach's job), but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. all the "educating" will happen AFTER the round, but i see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round.

TL;DR: collapse, extend, weigh pls :D

Trigger Warnings

i don't require trigger warnings and will never opt out of any argument. trigger warnings have been widely misused and weaponized in debate to make me feel comfortable enough to not care about them. i won't penalize the absence of trigger warnings nor hack for them either. feel free to run trigger warning good/bad theory if you really care.

Framework

go crazy. i ran a lot of framework when i debated. structural violence is my comfort zone. default util.

Prog

- must send everyone a speech doc if reading any prog args

- i evaluate any prog arguments (Theory, K, T, tricks, PICs, etc.)

- pref shell format

- i dont care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny

- im more familiar with theory and ran it at a couple tournaments

- im wayyy less familiar with Ks so flesh out and explain your Ks well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with model minority and ive hit quite a few fem Ks throughout my career

- if you are going to swing wildly outside of the pf meta, and read phil-rooted args, i am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. make sure you're extending the rotb, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.

if you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, i will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory excludes me because i don't know how to debate it" response. do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.

as an aside to this ^, if you read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, i'm probably just going to intervene. this is one of the worst takes i've ever heard, and i'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity propagate. this is the one spot i feel 0 shame in intervening.

remember to have fun and make friends!

Speaks boosts:

guess my favorite esports team: +0.5 speaks

guess my favorite hockey team: +0.5 speaks

if you're dulaney faith zhao: -30 speaks with a loss

for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman.

Darla Kleiner Hire 4 rounds None

Michael KLEINER Hire 4 rounds None

Hallie Kreiter West Bend 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 11, 2023 at 2:09 AM CDT

This is my 9th year judging LD and PF. I was a Policy 4-person debater throughout high school before switch side took over. With that being said, speed generally isn't an issue for me. However, if you plan on reading so fast that you can't seem to catch your breath we may have an issue. I will say clear and if I still can't understand you I will close my laptop and stop flowing. It isn't fair to your opponent if you are reading so fast they cannot keep up and frankly, it's bad debating.

I enjoy listening to debates that interact with the real world. I like hearing about the big picture, I tend to pay more attention to big picture items in round versus minute details. Tell me why I should vote for you and what will happen if I don't. I like hearing impact calculation, cost benefit analyses and the more 'policy like' arguments (the only exception to the policy like arguments is nuclear war. We get it, we’re all going to die of nuclear fallout, there are far better impacts than this.) While I prefer real world ideas and how my decision will impact people, I enjoy listening to theory debates. When running theory I want you to explain to me what it is you're running, I want you to teach it to me like I'm a kid. I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. Theory is not only difficult to run but exceptionally difficult to run well. A bad theory argument is a time suck to the debate round and a missed chance of learning for you and your opponent.

I’ve heard so many bad roadmaps. If you are going to give me a roadmap before your speech please just tell me whether it’s your case or your opponent’s case and, if it’s relevant whether it is on or off case. I don’t need a long detailed explanation on what you are covering in each contention during your roadmap.

Cross Ex: This is for you as a debater, I'm not flowing this or pulling through any arguments you made here. Cross Ex is for you to clarify and ask questions of your opponents.

I expect debaters to time their own speeches and cross examination. I also expect that you keep track of your own prep time, I will as well but, technology is fickle and having an additional timer is usually helpful. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them.

Sharon Lacey Grand Rapids City 2 rounds None

Emily Laduke West Bloomfield High School 4 rounds None

John Lawson Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

MaryAlice LeDuc Cranbrook 4 rounds

Carrie Lewis Saline MS 4 rounds None

Arjun Lingala Potomac Debate Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Jonah Benjamin Lipman Hire 4 rounds

Nancy Lizotte Saline High School 4 rounds None

Julian Malek Dexter High School 4 rounds None

Felix Martinez Dexter High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 11, 2023 at 7:08 AM EDT

I am a parent judge. In my professional capacity, I am a Program Manager at a federal agency, where I design and implement research programs that fund environmental science projects. My educational back ground includes a BS in Biology, a MS in Marine Science, and a PhD in Ecology. My research experience focused on the reproductive biology and larval ecology of coral reef fishes. My general science interests have always centered around the question of why do animals do the things they do.

When it comes to the discussion of ideas, regardless of the topic, I do have one key philosophy. If a person makes a claim during an argument, but fails to provide any evidence to back that claim, I consider that just an opinion. An opinion is never a statement of fact. To me, evidence can only be provided by providing empirical data. Quoting an expert is not evidence to a claim and does not establish a fact. Rather than quoting the expert, one needs to explain the data that the expert used to make that quote. Basically, when making a statement, you should always ask yourself how do YOU know? Does the data that the expert gave to back their claim actually prove what the expert is claiming?

An example of my philosophy, can be seen in the claims about runaway global warming due to anthropogenic CO2. As an aside, I am not implying that the temperature of the Earth has not risen since the Little Ice Age. We know it has because we have empirical evidence. The claims that human activity is the main driver of the increase are made based on the results of computer simulations. These computer simulations are done with models that are built on incomplete knowledge of all the factors that regulate the Earth's climate. As such, they can only provide crude representations and cannot actually predict how climate will really change. The model results are not empirical data of how climate has or will change. The best a model can do in this case is tell us how well we currently understand climate and how our predictions stand against actual observations. So far, no climate model has been able to predict observed temperature correctly. British statistician George Box said it best... "All models are wrong, some are useful."

Another example is the claim that on average as a whole women salaries are 30% less than those for men. Although some making that claim do provide empirical data to show that result, the data in this case is not applicable because the question is not that simple at face value. In order to understand the differences between women and men salaries, one has to consider many other aspects. Are they are working the same or comparable jobs? If so, are they working the same amount of years/hours? One needs to correct for these differences and then look at the new data in order to determine if there is indeed a difference based on sex when it comes to wages.

As a scientist, there is another key philosophy I was taught. When looking at one's data, one needs to always consider that there may actually be alternative explanations to what we have found. Before one makes a conclusion, one needs to consider all possible alternatives. It is possible that more than one of those alternative explanations could explain our observations. In such cases, it is always prudent to consider the most simple explanation as the most likely. I have based this philosophy on the concepts of Occam's Razor and the Principle of Parsimony.

One last thought that I would like to make pertains to science and its practice in modern times. You will often read and hear claims that consensus has been reached on a scientific issue and thus the question is settled. Science as a discipline is one of constant inquiry. Science is never settled because one never knows if/when new observations will provide new insights on a scientific question and completely upend how we thought about the topic. Also, science is never done by consensus. Many scientists can agree on a theory but that does not make it true, much less a scientific law. It only takes one scientist to make new empirical observations that run contrary to current theory to make it null and establish a new understanding of the topic.

So I leave you with this take home message:

1) Beware of those that do not show you empirical data to back up a claim.

2) Beware of those that do not consider a question properly and look at the data without bias.

3) Beware of those that do not consider any other alternatives before making their claim.

4) Beware of those that do not understand that science is never settled and is never done by consensus.

Billy Mathis Utica Chieftains 2 rounds None

Tim McPherson Gaylord High School 4 rounds

Doug Miller Campbell Hall 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 8:13 AM PDT

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Shannon Nierman Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2019 at 2:14 PM UTC

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Amanda Nobra Hire 4 rounds

Vera Nweke Hire 4 rounds

Jasmine Park BC Academy 4 rounds

Niral Patel Hire 3 rounds None

Patrick Pek UAIS 4 rounds

Charlisa Penzak Hire 1 rounds

James Penzak Hire 4 rounds

Keagan Peterson Gaylord High School 4 rounds None

Kathryn Polus Traverse City Central 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 7, 2022 at 5:17 AM EDT

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped".

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority. I do not find any flashy behavior appropriate, and will take speaker points for rude interruptions during constructives or rebuttals, cursing or inappropriate language, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round, arrogant or insulting comments even if you believe you are winning the round.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

Add to me to the email chain: poluskathryn@gmail.com

Henry Quach Gabrielino High School 4 rounds None

Michele Rau Grand Rapids City 2 rounds None

Rose Reilly Dexter High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 13, 2021 at 3:52 AM EDT

I debated all throughout high school, so I am very familiar with the mechanics of PF debate. Here is what I ask of you in each round:

1. Be kind and polite to your competitors. Being rude will affect speaker points, and in some extreme cases, the outcome of the round.

2. Talk at a pace that is reasonable to everyone in the round. I can flow speed and will clear you if you are just going too fast, but if I think that you are using speed as a tool to make the round inaccessible to your competitors, that may affect speaker points/outcome of the round.

3. Provide a clear explanation of why you should be winning the round. This will help you to be more sure of the outcome of the round. If you leave me to weigh impacts or compare frameworks, you are giving me a lot of control over the outcome of the round.

4. Provide evidence in a clear and accessible manner. I am totally fine with "Author Name, Year" citations (and in fact, I think this is how you should always cite after the first time you mention the card), but make sure that your citations are consistent and accurate. I will not ask for evidence at the end of the round (unless there is some major disagreement about what the card actually says in the round) because I feel that this is the responsibility of the debaters.

--If evidence is requested by your opponents, you must produce it in 90 seconds, or it will eat into your prep time. When reviewing evidence, that is your prep time. If I think you are using evidence request as a means to steal prep time, I will call you out and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

5. CrossX is a time for asking and answering questions. If I think that you are abusing the purpose of CrossX to respond to your opponent's answers, I will interrupt you. If it continues, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

6. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Debate is an excellent learning opportunity, and if there is anything that I can do to make it more educational, just let me know. I am always available via email: rmreilly@umich.edu.

Thank you! Good luck!

Sydney Reuter-Gushow H.H. Dow High School 4 rounds

Erika Rice Hire 4 rounds None

Jay Richardson Dexter High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:51 AM EDT

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

Joe Rodrigues Grand Rapids City 4 rounds

Ellen Kathleen Searle Hire 4 rounds

Dylan Shin Hire 4 rounds None

Faith Stanley Hire 4 rounds

Ronald Stevenson Hire 2 rounds

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins
their arguments in the debate.
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win.
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance.
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a
must.
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above).
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one.
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate.

Mani(kandan) Sundararajan Grand Rapids City 4 rounds

Ayva Swatsenbarg Hire 4 rounds None

Liberty Tidberg Fort Atkinson High School 4 rounds

Nick Tolksdorf Brother Rice High School 4 rounds

Addyson Walker West Bloomfield High School 4 rounds

Faye Wang Grand Rapids City 1 rounds None

Andrew Wirth Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 17, 2020 at 4:16 AM EDT

Update: 2020

Hello, I would like to preface this paradigm with "I have been out of the activity since 2018" and I'm coming back to judge. Since leaving the activity, I have started my PhD in communication studies and performance studies at LSU. For policy debaters, I have been still in the critical theory literature, but I'm still adjusting back to the activity. If there is one thing I remember from judging: Impact framing!!! Every debate I've judged since coming back ends up coming down to both sides comparing why their "worlds" or "positions" are better.

Lastly, please be nice. My biggest frustration is teams that are mean and unnecessarily hostile on issues that do no matter to the debate. I understand being loud and proud on key issues in the debate, but being indigent about micro level things = lower speaks.

This was my first year of judging college debate, and I’ve learned a lot about myself as a judge, hence this addendum to my current judging philosophy. I know that for many seniors, this is your last tournament, and it’s only right that I let you know so you can decide where you want me (if at all) in your prefs. As a judge and a competitor, I’ve always tried to embody the mantra of ‘You do you, ’ and this sentiment is still true. However, there are ‘little truths’ that I will not negotiate as a judge.

1. I will flow in a linear and straight down manner regardless of any team’s request. First, flowing is important because it forces me to pay attention and process your argument better. Second, I don’t have the ability to remember a debate, especially the particular framing of the arguments without my flow.

2. Debate is an activity with set speech times. If both teams do not agree to alternative rules of engagement, then the default must be 9-minute constructive speeches, 3-minuete cross-examination, 6-minute rebuttal speeches. During each constructive or rebuttal, only one team may speak. The other team must respect that rule. Under no circumstance is that up for debate (unless agreed upon before the 1AC begins). I’m not a good judge for debate innovators that seek to question or change the form (i.e. speech times), but I’m a good critic for teams that criticize the content and style of debate (i.e. the resolution and the norms established by the constraint of the form). If you interrupt an opponent while speaking, and they ask to you stop, but you don’t stop, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Tech over truth, with obvious caveats. Personally, the flow matters to me. It’s primarily, with the exception of speech docs, what I use to evaluate the debate. Not all dropped arguments are true, but dropped arguments, impact framing, claims, and so on become the easiest way for me to make a decision without intervening. I’ve been told by some ‘very’ left and non-traditional teams that I’m often too technical for them. For example, I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on procedural fairness and truth testing, which means you don’t get the 1AC if it means I don’t intervene.

4. Embedded clash – based on my previous point, I want to clarify distinction between a dropped argument and embedded clash, but first I would like to express my views on embedded clash. I often judge many debates where the 2NR/2AR will speak, with presumed embedded clash, and just talk about what they want to talk about straight down with little reference to the previous speech. Let me clear, I’m not asking for a technical line by line, but rather I want teams to use embedded clash and cross apply it where it’s necessary. I.e. cross apply the link debate on the perm. In my philosophy proper, I explain a lot about my love framing, which you should read if I’m judging you, and I will often go rogue and not connect the dots the way you understand the debate.

5. Dropped arguments – I’m not technical to the extent where, if you drop something blippy, then you auto lose. Obviously, winning smaller arguments makes it harder to win larger claims, but the 1AR should be able to explain to me why the 2AC didn’t drop ‘x’ arg because of ‘y’ argument/card.

5. I will not vote on arguments with a metathesis that I do not understand. There’s a difference between methods, such as a praxis that allows for particular groups to communication between one and other in a manner that cannot be understood by the hegemonic majority, and poorly explained high theory or philosophy. Often, I judge debates where the 2NC clearly pivots from the 1NC and will apply a different theory to existing pieces of evidence. This kind of strategy is not a good move if you’re going for my ballet because I will often default to cards and speech docs as a means to understand the debate. In other words, I use evidence to trace the debate if I cannot trace it via of the flow.

6. When in doubt, assume I have never been in your lit or that I understand all of ‘your big words.' I’m smart enough to follow along and if you can teach me. I’ve judged many debates where students will say, “they dropped the libidinal economy,” and why didn’t I auto-win. Yes, there are meta-levels claims, if dropped, make the debate over, but you need to explain to me why that is the case. Impact out why dropped arguments and buzzwords matter. In other words, frame your arguments as “if we win “x”, then that mean “y” and that means the aff can’t win for “z”.

---------------------------------------------------------

Hello, my name is Andrew Wirth. I debated for three years in high school at Forest Hills Central, and for four years at Wayne State University. I have 9+ years of debate experience at the college and high school level.

Preface (General):

When I started the activity in 2007 (wow, that seems so long ago), I debated in the traditional manner (plan text/USFG action good) and transitioned to critical debate, more specifically queer theory and disabilities studies, my senior year of college. As a coach, I found myself coaching an assemblage of different types of teams ranging from policy to performance. When describing myself, I don't consider myself a "tab judge", a critical hack (whatever that means), or a traditional policy judge. The only way I can describe myself as a judge would is by quoting famous philosopher Hannah Montana:

You get the best of both worlds

Mix it all together and you know that it's the best of both worlds

I know what you're thinking, "is this guy really quoting Hannah Montana?" If you think that's a reason to strike me, then go for it, I wouldn't blame you tbh.

As a judge, I feel like you get the best of a judge who's been trained in policy debate and analysis. I'm interested in debates that centered around methodological questions about if the state is a good actor, even redeemable, or maybe that doesn't even matter. You tell me. [If you're thinking to yourself, "it sounds like this guy judges a lot of clash of the civ debates," then you're totally right].

However, Hannah Montana didn't state that when you get the best of both worlds, you often get the worst of both worlds too. In this case, I will confess that I have major short comings in policy and critical debate. For example, I'm the worst judge for intense counterplan competition debate. Seriously, that's one thing that never really carried over from my policy debate training. [Note, I know actor CP (ie, xo, congress, courts) aren't, or maybe are competitive]. In regards to critical debate, I'm still somewhat new to all the literature. I often find myself judging debates where both teams are screaming buzzwords that I have no idea what they mean. Just to be safe, assume that I'm an idiot.

Also, I almost forgot, I'm a huge fan of ghost stories, paranormal activity, and spectators. If you have an aff that deals with the spookies, then I'm your ordinal 1.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

Top Level:

1) Personally, I’ve debated every style of debate; I’ve read everything from one advantage heg affs to performance. I think every different style of debate has a unique pedagogical benefit, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to adapt to what I think a good debate looks like. You do you and I'll come along for the ride.

2) Personally, I believe arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Any argument that has these three things is fair game for my ballot, regardless if it’s carded.

3) A dropped argument is a true argument, however, if it doesn’t have a claim, warrant, or an impact, then I don’t think its true. I tend to give leeway to teams answering dropped arguments if the other team presents new warrants and impacts to those claims.

Framing questions:

So I've been judging for about 8 years and my biggest pet peeve is that I don't think that many 2NRs or 2ARs give very good impact framing. Personally, I find it difficult when the final two speeches of the debate spew out a bunch links and impacts and don't tell me how to intpret or weigh them. I think that we've all come to the conclusion that judge intervention is the worst, and we hate it when our fates are arbitrarily decided by a judge.

Framework:

My final year of college debate, I decided to read affirmatives that did not endorse USFG action. Typically, many framework teams believe this makes me incredibility bias towards the affirmative. However, I find myself voting on framework more often than not. This may sound weird, but I'm most comfortable judging a framework debate.

I find framework to be more persuasive when it’s framed as critique of method because it directly clashes with the method of the 1AC.

My only aff side bias is that I tend to have a higher threshold for topical version of the aff.

Topicality:

I will first confess that I don't like judging T debates. At the high school level, debaters are often going way to fast for me and it's difficult to keep up T debates at full spreading speeds. Another issue I find is that high schoolers do not know how to transition between arguments, and that makes T debates only more difficult for me to judge.

Spoiler: I hate judging T debates tbh.

Theory debates:

I tend to default on reject the argument not the team in most theory debates. I think it’s up to the 2NR/2AR to present a reason why I should vote down the other team. I think winning theory gives you access to strategic benefits in the debate, like leeway on perms for cheating counter plans.

Condo is pretty sweet in my opinion, well at least in moderation. I find it difficult for a team to persuade me that one CP and K ,two CPs, or two Ks is impossible for the 2AC to handle.

Consult/Delay/Process CP: This is my inner 2A coming out here, and if the counter plan results in the plan, then I’m pretty sick to my stomach. Unless the counter plans contain specific evidence about the affirmative. I don’t think they are a reason to reject the team, but justify abusive permutations. Did I mention that I'm horrible at judging counter plan competition debates?

Perm theory: Reject the arg not the team because any other standard is silly. Even if the other team drops severance is a reason to reject the team, I think that doesn’t have a real warrant….

Counter Plans:

I love a good counter plan debate, however, I'm not really the best judge for CP debates that compete on immediacy or really intricate texts that makes the CP uniquely different from the plan. Based on the nature of debate tournaments, I have very little time to make a decision and I would ideally love an hour to sit down and hash out these kinds of debates. Please, don't make me judge a counter plan competition debate.

Critiques:

Critiques are fine by me. I must confess, there might be a high chance or probability that I may have not read your literature, which means I find it very important for the negative to define particular terms. I mean, I know what epistemology, ontology, methodology, and so on are, and however, I have yet to read the entirety of feminism studies or various other disciplines.

I think the aff needs to defend the method of the 1AC, and these are often the most beautiful debates to watch and judge.

I think it’s hard to win the perm because the negative team will often always win a risk of a link, however, I think winning the impact and alternative level of the debate is the best way to go for winning my ballot. However, I've started to realize that teams aren't reading links these days, and by that I mean the neg is just reading generic links no about the aff, so maybe the perm is an option.

Have fun, don't be mean, and make me laugh.

Marc Yoon BC Academy 4 rounds

Dunia Zawideh West Bloomfield High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:25 PM PDT

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.

Tony Zhang BC Academy 4 rounds

Victor Zhang International Academy Central 4 rounds

Stefanie R. Zin Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 4:54 AM EDT

Greetings!

Hi! I am Stefanie Zin.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: zinst4364@gmail.com

If you don't read ANYTHING else, please read the following:

1.PLEASE SIGNPOST

2.PLEASE PROVIDE A ROADMAP

Okay, now that I've said that:

While I debated in high school for four years, and in college for two, it was a while ago. I have VERY LIMITED familiarity with most Kritiks and definitely not as fast a flow as I used to be. That said, you needn't act like you are giving an "after dinner speech". Related to speed, I also appreciate intelligibility. My motto is, "If I can't understand what you said, I can't flow it and if I can't flow it, I can't vote on it." To borrow a statement from my Ex-Husband, David Zin, "Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute."

I am a bit of a traditionalist: I tend to have a stock issues approach to the AFF, I like clear and succinct tags on evidence. You can read the evidence as fast as you want (assuming you are intelligible). I appreciate it when the 2NR/2AR not only provide me with justification as to why they win, but contrasts their position to the other team and explain how they outweigh.

Tag team CX is okay, within reason. I award speaker points based on the quality/content of the speeches as well as CX performance. I want all of the debaters to be able to think on their feet and not rely solely on their partner to "carry them through the round". Please demonstrate your independent understanding and mastery of the material (this will be rewarded).

Finally, I have a deep and profound respect for civility in a debate round. Your goal should be to prevail based on the content and quality of your argumentation, not on your ability to subject your opponent to abject misery and totally debase them. (This type of behavior will NOT be rewarded and you will NOT be happy with your Speaker Points as a result).

Please consider the following elements with an "X" denoting my position with respect to the spectrum of characteristics.

No Tag Team CX---------------------------X---Tag Team CX okay (within reason

Tech---------------------X----------------------Truth

Policy--X---------------------------------------Kritiks (As stated above, I have very limited experience with Kritiks.)

Theory--------------------------------------X------Substance

I'll read no cards----------------------X-----------I'll read all the cards

Lots of so-so cards ---------------------X-------- A few good, longer cards

Debate is about ideas--------------------X-------------------Debate is about people

Debate is good/valuable -X--------------------------------It's not

Conditionality bad-------------------------X--------------------Conditionality good

No process CPs ------------------------------X---------------Lit determines legitimacy

Politics DA not a thing --------------------------------X-------------(Good) Politics DA is a thing

Running Kritiks assuming I am infinitely UNFAMILIAR with them-----------------------X- Explain the K and the Alt and Framework

Framework with respect to Kritiks - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE and how I should weigh it!!!

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Unintelligibility (Trust me on this!)

I'm a robot-----------------------------------------X-Slow down on tags/cites/analytics/theory

Aff Ground--------------------X-------------------------Limits

Long overviews-----------------------------------X----Articulate positions, line by line

2NRs that collapse ---X------------------------------- 2NRs that go for everything

2ARs that assume I will vote AFF regardless------------------------------X-2ARs that tell my WHY to vote AFF.

I look forward to an enjoyable experience judging you and your team!

Login to Tabroom

Groves Falcon Invitational

2023 — NSDA Campus, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges