Hello! I'm Mr.Bergeron, and I'm excited to be judging your round today. I have a background in coaching and competing all platforms of debate (minus Congress), both at the high school and collegiate levels. I competed in these formats before transferring to UT Austin, where I continued my involvement in individual events. Today, my judging approach is rooted in the importance of flowing, realistic links to evidence-supported impacts, and an evaluative weighing of the round.

Judging Criteria:

1. Flow:

   • I will be closely following the flow throughout the round. Clear organization and strategic use of cross-applications will be rewarded.
   • Be sure to signpost and extend arguments throughout the round

2. Realistic Links to Evidence:

   • Ensure that your links to evidence are well-explained and supported.

3. Impacts:

   • Impact analysis is key. Clearly articulate the implications and significance of your arguments in the round.
   • Show how your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and be ready to explain why certain impacts should be prioritized over others.

4. Weighing the Round:

   • I appreciate debaters who engage in active weighing throughout the round. Compare and contrast arguments to guide me in evaluating their relative importance.
   • Make sure to address and resolve conflicting impacts, demonstrating a deep understanding of the round's dynamics.

5. Evaluative Approach:

   • My decision will be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the entire debate. This includes the quality of arguments, strategic choices, and overall performance.
   • I value debaters who adapt to their opponent's arguments, demonstrate critical thinking, and can pivot their strategy when needed.

Remember, clarity is key. Speak at a pace that is comfortable and clear for you, your opponents, and me (I am fine with speed but be clear and remember the event I am judging in). I look forward to a thought-provoking and well-debated round. Good luck!

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I am primarily an interp coach. If I am judging you in debate, please do not assume I know anything about the resolution or any of your cases. I will judge based on who makes the best argument, with warrants and supporting evidence. Be clear about what you are arguing and why you are winning the debate. Speak clearly and confidently, do not be rude or condescending.

Good Luck!

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

CONFLICTS JOHN PAUL II HS, JPII, PLANO ISD

I teach AP World History, World History-Honors and World History at Clark HS - Plano ISD. At my previous job, I was the assistant debate coach for four years where I specialize in research in all forms of debate, foreign and domestic extemp.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Decades ago at Jesuit of Dallas and Georgetown University in the 1970s and early 1980s I debated. While I began in Policy/CX, I gravitated towards Model UN debate on the college circuit. As a teacher I was the Academic Decathlon lead coach for 15 years and assisted with it later as an administrator for a total of 23 years. While coaching I learned to judge LD, PF and Domestic and Foreign Extemp. Since 2015 I was the Assistant Debate and Speech Coach at John Paul II HS and have added PFD. Since 2021, I have worked in Plano ISD and now judge as Plano and my school need me.

My degrees are a BS in Foreign Service and a Masters of Arts in Modern History. I am bilingual in Spanish and German and have been a teacher since 1988. I have also been a public school district coordinator of social studies, foreign languages and gifted education as well as a high school coordinator of curriculum. I have taught college and currently teach AP World History. I am a national consultant for AP World History and a national reader of AP essays.

JUDGING, PARADIGMS, PREFERENCES

I am familiar with almost any and every topic you will have. I was trained to be a diplomat and opted not to work for the Central Intelligence Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency on moral grounds. I am a voracious daily reader of newspapers, magazines, fiction, history, politics, economics and religion. And I have a strong philosophical background thanks to eight years of a Jesuit education. I am not a big fan of theoretical arguments so much as substantiated points and I really need to be able to follow your case. Roadmaps and sign-posting help! I am a big-picture judge. Defending against a single card or argument is not as important as the whole case. And I would rather see a few well-articulated points than a lot of little points which seemingly bury me and your opponent under minutia.

As a judge I am very traditional - I prefer old-school value and criterion! I hate spreading – do not lose accuracy and articulation for speed. Please stand when you present. And while I know students like to flash cases, somehow I grew up in a day when this was like giving away the playbook. I like it when debaters ask to see each other’s cards and evidence. I do not like shocks or oddities that involve contradiction of reality and thought. But as I have told my own debaters after returning from summer camps, I will try to accurately and intelligently judge any debate. Be forewarned however.

Just because I speak German and am familiar with Kritik theory does not mean that I am a fan of it. I am also not a very good judge of Kritik so run it at your own risk. Please take time to explain your K to me and do not assume I have read your authors, content, etc.

If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best at the end of each round to highlight a few things each debater can improve upon – I will even suggest cases, reads, and cards. I do not like to disclose because I have to read my notes and think sometimes before making a final decision. I do give low point wins but rarely. My hopes are that you will always debate to the best of your abilities.

Lastly, debate should not be a diatribe or show of hostility. For me while debate can be confrontational, in so many ways I am a British barrister or solicitor. I would prefer that all debaters be civil towards each other – treat the room as if you were in a court of law. And this judge insists upon professionalism and correct decorum. I would rather not have to cite any participants for contempt in speaker points. And I deplore racism, ethnic bias, gender bias, homophobia, and religious bias either for or against a faith or lack of faith.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Your evidence is important. And just dropping a card, a name and a citation is dumb without an explanation to what the source believes and why it supports your argument or refutes your opponent’s argument. State or question the qualification of authors and compare their warrants. This is critical in Advanced Placement historical writing and in all debates I judge!

It is my opinion that current debaters waste Cross-Examination time far too much. Learn to use it well. Please ask and answer questions.

While Policy has a 2AC, LD does not have it in the same way. This means that AC has to use the 1 AR much more aggressively than Policy. I like to see 1 AR go on the offense on as many of the negative positions, points as possible. This scores voters for me.

Please tell me why you should win, why your opponent should not win and prove it. It is likely your final statement in a court of law. And you can win or lose on how you handle voters. I vote on what I have been able to flow and understand. This begins with who in my opinion won the framework debate. Then I look for evidence to either substantiate my belief or refute it.

PFD

I love PF. As with other types of debate, I prefer substance to delivery and style. Content is rarely a problem for me. I read constantly. My first year with PF I researched and presented Catalonian independence as my first venture into teaching PF. For me it was part of being a Spanish-speaker, an FC Barcelona fan and a historian of European history and politics!

CX

While this was my initial introduction in 1973 to Debate at Jesuit, later I was lost to other types of debate. I wanted to be a diplomat rather than a lawyer. And as a devout Catholic with strong Jewish tendencies, life is often more about abstract issues of faith and philosophy rather than the law which the old Romans so loved. Ergo I found I like other forms of debate. However in a crunch when a tournament needs to push a ballot and procure a judge, I would do it. But like my Latin, my CX is rusty. I understand more than I know but am really out of touch. So it is best if you assume nothing if you have me in a CX round. I will have a lot of ideas about your topic as I have successful CX students in our program. They constantly ask me for research.

Bottom line - I am a Stock Issues Paradigm judge. Avoid spreading - speak slowly. After all slowing down still means you could be speeding! And flesh out your arguments.

COMPUTERS

Computers have become a part of debate whether I like it or not. All debaters should have to suffer making cards, carrying vast card files around, and developing both research skills and muscles. OK, enough reminiscing.

Flash, jump cases and documents in a timely manner – before or at worse, immediately at the end of a speech to allow them time to prepare. I will not count the time against you.

Debating with a laptop is a choice but also sadly a necessity. If your opponent does not have one, be prepared to show him/her your laptop or surrender it to him/her as needed. Your need to prep is outweighed by your opponent’s need for that information.

Pfd

This event was originally designed to be judged by lay, or community judges and I prefer to judge it in that way. This means you should keep the debate jargon to a minimum. Make sure you address as much as possible in the earlier speeches. Summary speeches and final focus should flesh out those arguments that are the most important in the round. Keep polite decorum during crossfire.

Make sure to define key terms, if you don't give a definition and your opponent does I will default to their definition.

Keep signposting clear as possible, this helps everyone know where you are on the flow.

LD

I am a more traditional judge in this event, here is my paradigm in a nutshell:

Speed- if you begin to speak so fast that I can't understand you, I will simply stop flowing until you slow down to where I can understand you. The more you enunciate and are clear the better off you will be.

Value and crterion- your case should have some sort of standard, show the link between it and the rest of your case. I value the standards debate over the contention level.

Give voters at the end of your last speech, that is what I will look to first.

When referring back to a piece of evidence or an argument please tell me what it said, not "cross apply, or look at author x". I can't keep up with all of your sources. I am looking at the argument or evidence, which what I've written on the flow. In addition, I do not buy time skew arguments, when you signed up for this event you knew that speech times could be in your favor or against it.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!