King Round Robin
2024 — Houston, TX/US
PF Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideINTERP Specific: DO NOT SCREAM in your performance. I understand being loud for emotional reasons, but you do not need to scream at the top of your lungs. I hear a fair bit of screaming my day to day and it genuinely bothers me more than any uncomfortable social issue/topic. I will rank you lower for screaming as a tie breaker.
Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.
Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.
Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've only vote on two theory arguments. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)
In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.
In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD
Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't. I really like it when you understand why an extemp question is an extemp question. A good extemp question is about a bigger picture and if your analysis reflects great topic knowledge and I am typically going to be more interested/engaged and rank you higher.
Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge. Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.
King Update:
Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech
I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake
tldr stuff is bolded
Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com
General:
Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"
If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us
Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite
~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~
Part I - General
I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments
I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them
"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech
Part II - Evidence
Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache
Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.
Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.
Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it
Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after
Part III - Weighing
Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed
Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent
Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).
Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene
Part IV - Defense:
Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech
Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there
I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses
~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~
Theory:
I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA
If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them
Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win
Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)
Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)
Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension
Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive
K affs:
Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter
Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time
K:
I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable
I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg
I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level
I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm
Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments
FW:
I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything
Tricks:
Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them
~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~
Presumption:
Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can
Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first
Speaks:
I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.
I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.
Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane
If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:
1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.
2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.
3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.
4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.
5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.
Online Debate Update:
Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.
PF Overview:
All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.
Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.
Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.
I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.
K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".
I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).
Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.
Rewritten for 2024/25. Fairly similar to my old paradigm but I would just read it over to make sure
anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain, I prefer speech drop. Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the chain started so we don't delay the rounds please and thank you.
Background
Currently the Director of Southlake Carroll and Bluebonnet Debate. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.
General
Tech > Truth but the tech needs to be warranted. The easiest way to lose my ballot is to extend blips without any warrants. An example of this would be something like “food shortage cause conflict which leads to war.” I need to know why food shortage causes a conflict and who the conflict is between. The easiest way to win my ballots is through clear extensions and well implicated weighing.
Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you’re unclear then that’ll be your fault. I won’t flow off of the doc, I’ll only use it to check for evidence if I’ve called to. Don’t assume you can read like 1200 words on me just because you sent a doc.
I don’t flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.
Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said.
I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.
This is random but I bob my head when I'm flowing sometimes, it's not a nod, please don't assume I agree with you when I do it.
Speaking
Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me. Actions that will likely doc your speaks: stealing prep, slow evidence exchange, having your partner tell you what to say during your speech, spreading and then having a lot of time left at the end of speech (like literally what was the need?)
I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say, then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.
Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.
Kritiks
I’m very comfortable with Kritiks. My teams have run Fem IR, Sec, Cap, Set Col, Hip Hop, Model Minority, and 1 or 2 more so if you’re running anything similar to those then you should be fine. Make sure you understand your own K though.
Theory/Norms
Disclosing is good, bracketing is bad, paraphrasing is bad, round docs make the event accessible to everyone.
I’ll evaluate all shells but if they fall under my norms above you’ll probably have a lower bar to hit.
LD Cheat sheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)
Policy: 1
Topical Ks: 2
Theory: 3
Non-Topical Ks: 4
Phil: 5
Tricks: Strike
Speech:
Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.
Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.
When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life. Draw me into your world.
Debate (PF/LD/WSD):
Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me. I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence.
Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win. Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.
Congress: Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in. Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons.
Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points. I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro. If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.
University of Houston B.A., Northwestern Pritzker School of Law J.D.
I defer wholly to the Tabula Rasa paradigm. I have no qualms about voting on any form of argument (including T's, theory, K's, or even inherency), so long as...
1-You win the argument and,
2-You give me a proper contextualization of how winning this argument wins you the round.
E.g., "Inherency is a voter b/c of stock issues" won't get you my ballot.
On a personal note, I think that many of the major issues with debate is that many teams try to conform to well-worn blocks and articulations of different voters, particularly with stock issues or T/theory. I'd much prefer an interesting voter or standard than a very discursive and unexplained "education or fairness claim." Be creative with your standards and answers.
I don't evaluate whether or not an action made by aff or neg is abusive or not unless the other team brings it up. I don't believe it's my job as a judge to pre-decide what should or should not occur in a debate, I see each debate as an independent construction unto itself. Therefore, if you make an abuse claim, structure it and impact it. The only exception is if the 2AR reads new arguments, (because the neg can't stand up and call aff out). If this happens, I won't evaluate any of the new arguments, I will dock speaks, but it won't be an automatic loss on it's own. If this team wins on the substance of the non-new arguments then they win the debate round.
Don't extend arguments as a singular entity ("extend the D/A"). On Adv's I expect analysis on the impact claim even if it is unaddressed.
Specific Arguments:
First, I've always been more comfortable evaluating straight policy arguments because a good half of my debate experience excluded kritiks. This said, I am familiar with the most common K's (cap, neo-lib, security, colonialism, nietzsche, biopower, gendered/discourse, ableism etc.). The more obscure the K, the more work that you should do explaining it because I am certainly not as familiar as you will be with the literature. (Give me a good overview in the 2NC).
Second, I was a T/theory hack in high school so I will pull the trigger on T/theory. My expectations are listed below,
1-If you go for fairness you either have to have an AMAZING potential abuse shell, or a good source of in-round abuse. A major issue for teams going for T is that they don't set up the abuse story in the 1NC. If you're going for ASPEC, read politics/agent solvency takeouts. T and theory are arguments that should be part of the strategic whole of the negative argumentation, not another floating source of offense.
2-Slow down on T-standards, full speed on T and I'll miss a few.
3-If you go for T I want it to be 1 off in the 2NR, same goes for theory. You should only reference your other arguments in order to generate abuse stories for a fairness voter or to contextualize the lost education. Going for T and another argument undercuts the legitimacy of your T argument and usually results in under-coverage of standards/voters. Irregardless, I will evaluate all arguments you extend (if you do T + other voters in the 2NR), I don't believe it's a good strategic decision though.
I always evaluate the round in terms of offense/defense (unless a conceded framing issue says otherwise), so extending impacts into the final rebuttals is crucial to winning my ballot. If you're going fully on a stock issue, please frame this within this paradigm.
On a final note, I have never judged a performance debate or even seen one. Again, this does not make me unwilling to vote on it, but explaining it in terms of voters may be an uphill battle. So if you are going to perform, please contextualize it.
Speaks, usually between 26.5-30.
25 if you're offensive.
If anything here is unclear, please ask me about it before the round. I don't want there to be any ambiguity in my paradigm and if you don't understand some part of this paradigm, I'll do a rewrite here on the wiki as well.
Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Strath Haven and Edgemont. I have been judging quite actively since 2017. I started in public forum (where I often am to be found), but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!
I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com
REJOICE, FOR THE BAKER-WARRIORS OCCUPYING SPEECHDROP HAVE WITHDRAWN! I will be happy to usehttps://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop.
if you insist your opponents mark a doc, it goes on prep time. you do not gain free prep time from skipping cards. Feel free to not mark a doc for your opponents, they should be flowing, and can make a theory argument if they please. If the doc and accurate marking thereof are an accessibility issue, I am happy to change the way this is timed given both teams agree and practices are reciprocal.
also if you clip cards I will drop you.
if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a .docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing. PDFs are not acceptable forms of evidence sharing. If using google docs, save as .docx : also, if you need word, raise the jolly roger and avast! https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Script mac:https://massgrave.dev/office_for_mac
Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.
he/him
----
PF Paradigm (updated for emory 25):
Judging paradigm for PF.
I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging. Additionally, I think weighing that doesn't explicitly compare arguments is hardly weighing. We lack standard units in a debate round, so we must place two things on the scale rather than just one. See the excellent McClean 12 ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42663583?seq=3 ) for more on this !
email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch. I flow by ear and will generally only read evidence if I am interested to, told to during the debate, or need to verify a fact assertion like a post-date.
I am happy to evaluate a k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. If your critical approach makes interesting and careful use of difficult literature, I will be overjoyed to judge your round and happy to give high speaker points. If you engage a critical argument in good faith and do so meaningfully (ie, setting aside most procedurals, reading some competing evidence on methods questions, making a more robust permutation claim than 'pdb') You will similarly enjoy high speaker points. One day, interesting KvK throwdowns will happen in this activity, and we will all learn lots from these different sides of the library. I think the K is at its best when it at least has something to say about the topic, but what that means from an affirmative perspective is certainly up for debate. I don't think links of omission are enough.
Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am largely uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted. I am historically a bad judge for theory, but I love a good T debate.
That said, I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.
I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully! I tend to assign speaker points based on the quality of your strategic choice making rather than the quality of your oration, but I am happy to reward effective orators with higher speaker points as well.
---
pref shortcuts:
Phil / High Theory 1
K 1/2
LARP/policy/T 2
Tricks/Theory strike
-----
--
LD: updated for PFI 24.
philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. I enjoy a good Kant debate, but I think these debates are at their best when they are comparing relevant warrants from pieces of well-cut framing evidence, rather than going for dropped analytics that are in the connective tissue of your framework argument.
Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.
Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.
I very much enjoy judging critical arguments, and think that this activity is at its best when the approaches to thought from different slices of the humanities are robustly compared. The aff probably needs to react to / have some relation to the topic but what that means is certainly in the round. Make good use of cx to identify points of interaction between your perspective and the AC, and I expect your debate will be a joy to judge.
I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.
Put me on the email chain.
Happy to answer questions !
---
Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC
Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate
Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.
------
Policy Paradigm
I really enjoy judging cx. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.
The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.
Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.
I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
---
---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24
Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.
I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.
Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.
---
For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com
I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.
General
In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.
When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.
*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.
Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.
Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.
Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.
Evidence
Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.
Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.
Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.
If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.
If 3+ cards or >20% are missing an applicable author, author qualification(s), URL, or date in the written citation (to the extent provided by the original source), I believe that to be sufficient for a loss at tournaments that adhere to NSDA evidence rules. An oral citation that excludes the applicable publication year and/or author name will render that evidence inadmissible. These remedies will only go into effect if the debater(s) acknowledge them in the following speech and are themselves not guilty of the accusation. I will not evaluate these accusations technically; they are yes-no. This is not an auto-loss in rounds with panels (RRs, elims), though I would be very receptive to a theory argument. You may make theory arguments for narrower violations as well.
Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.
PF
Expect me to have topic knowledge.
Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.
Defense is not "sticky."
Second rebuttal must frontline.
Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.
Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.
Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.
1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.
Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.
Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.
That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."
The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.
I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.
LD/CX
I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.
Best for policy debates; fine for most else.
Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.
Text and function are probably good standards for competition.
Theory
I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.
Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.
Ks
Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.
Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.
Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.
Non-starters
Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.
Tricks.
Soliciting speaker points.
Misc
Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.
Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.
Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.
Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.
hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated nat circ pf for 3 years, coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club. if i'm judging in person you can assume i've done topic prep.
please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.
tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.
if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me
** what can i go for in front of you?
substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike
in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"
** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):
1.pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.
2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.
3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.
4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.
5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.
6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.
7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.
8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.EDIT EDIT: IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME WHEN YOU FRONTLINE YOUR FOUR CONTENTIONS IN ONE MINUTE IN 2ND REBUTTAL. PLZ WARRANT. PLZ WIN YOUR OFFENSE.
9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.
10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.
11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.
12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.
** theory:
i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.
1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.
2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.
3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.
4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.
5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.
6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.
7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.
** k neg (w/ topic link):
when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.
1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.
2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.
3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.
4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.
5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.
** k aff (non-t):
i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.
1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.
2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.
3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.
4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.
5. i don't personally think pf speeches are long enough to do any justice to ontological claims about the genesis of existent societal structures (settler colonialism, anti-blackness, etc), but if you think you can prove me wrong go wild.
I debated for 4 years at Blake and now coach for Blake. I previously coached at Potomac Debate Academy
Updated for UK 2024
Emails:
Note: I will not flow off your doc. It is your responsibility to communicate your arguments to me
Sending a google doc that is set to view only defeats the entire purpose of the email chain- I cannot verify if your cards are correctly cut, if you omitted context, etc if you do not give me clickable links. Especially with bracketing as pervasive as it is, please just send a Word file, pdf, or paste cards directly into the chain
General Philosophy
-I would generally describe myself as someone who believes in “tech over truth,” with the caveat that I need to understand your argument well enough to explain it back to you if I’m going to vote on it
-I am happy to listen to whatever you want to read, though I am most comfortable in topic-focused rounds (which include Ks that have specific links to the topic). I personally do not have much experience running or coaching K positions, but I know how they function and am happy to listen to anything as long as it is well warranted. Theory in front of me is fine too, though I don't like nitpicky disclosure debates (Open Source v First 3/Last 3 v Full Text) unless there is some egregious violation
-On theory more specifically, I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad, disclosure is good, RVIs are bad, and that reasonability > competing interps. None of these matter when I am judging, but these are my biases when it comes to theory
Things I Like
-Actual cards. PF evidence norms have gotten significantly better over the last couple of years, but there is still work to be done. Be able to produce whatever you are reading with full cites quickly.
-The split. I think it is necessary that the 2nd rebuttal goes back and covers at least turns, and ideally the best defensive responses. This not only makes the round more fair, but also is probably strategic for you
-Voting issues. This is just a personal thing, but I prefer for you to organize your summary/FF into voting issues. If you don't it's fine, but it is, in my opinion, an easy way to clarify the round and helping show me where you are winning and where you want me to vote. If you don't that's fine, just make sure your story is clear
-Signposting. If I don't know where you are on the flow I may not be able to follow you and will probably miss things. It's in your best interest to make sure I don't miss anything
-Weighing. I'll be the first to admit that as a debater I am not the greatest at weighing. Still, link and impact weighing can be easy ways to win my ballot. Tell me why your links/impacts are more important than theirs so I don't have to work through it myself. It'll make my job easier and make you happier
-Evidence comparison. If I'm presented with evidence that says that, for example, says the Arctic has huge levels of tension, and another that says that the Arctic is peaceful, I don't know how to resolve that unless you compare them for me (Dates? Authors? Warrants? Etc)
-Full link chains in the 2nd half of the round. Please tell me what the resolution means in terms of your links/impacts instead of just going into an impact debate. Too often link extensions are not very well explained or just assumed. Even if it is dropped, please extend the full link
-Consistency through Summary/FF. Your summary and final focus should be very similar and extend most of the same things. In order for me to vote on something it needs to be in summary, so your final focus shouldn't have anything new/pulled from before summary, except for maybe weighing but even then it's tough to win off of. 3 minute summaries means there has to be collapse, but offense has to be in both for me to vote
-I would ask that you extend defense in summary. I think extending your best defense is a good idea. It depends on the defense/frontlines whether I will let you extend from first rebuttal to first FF (to be safe always extend the defense you have time for). Defense MUST be in 2nd summary though
-Have fun and be yourself. If you are enjoying yourself, I will probably enjoy myself too
Things I Don't Like
-I have an extremely low threshold for responses on "death good" or "extinction good" arguments. I would rather that you just not read them
-Long evidence exchanges. Not sure why this is an issue, but it is. If you read a card in round, you should be able to produce it for me/the other team within a couple of minutes. If you can't, I'll probably be sad. This has gotten especially egregious in online debates and makes them drag on forever. I don't want to be chilling on a zoom for an hour and a half because teams can't produce the evidence they are reading
-Random debate jargon without explanation. "Uniqueness controls the direction of the link" may be true in the round and I know what you're saying, but explain to me what that actually means in the context of your arguments
-Fake weighing. Weigh on probability, time frame, magnitude, or pre rec. I guess I'll accept scope and strength of link as weighing mechanisms, but those are just other words for magnitude and probability. Anything else will make me sad
-Lazy debating. Interact with defense, don't just give me the argument that you have "risk of offense" and hope to win my ballot
-Extending through ink. If you don't clash/interact with your opponents' responses, but still extend your arguments, all it does it makes the round messy and harder to judge.
-Racist/sexist/homophobic and other hateful language and arguments. Debate is supposed to be educational and safe, and such language and behavior undermine that purpose. I will not hesitate to drop you if I feel like it is necessary
If anything is unclear/you have additional questions, feel free to email me at tmgill719@gmail.com
Email chain: laurenho110@gmail.com
Please send speech docs for every speech or I will dock speaker points! :)
I am a former PF debater in high school but have been out of the circuit for several years. I've judged mostly PF and have minimal experience judging LD, so at this point I would consider myself a "flay" judge. I'm more comfortable with traditional arguments and less familiar with progressive/tech arguments.
With that being said, I'm open to evaluating progressive stuff IF I can understand it. Generally, this means speak slowly, explain things as though I've never heard it before (b/c I haven't), and minimize the jargon if you can help it.
For traditional debates, I'm fine with speed as long as you're speaking coherently. I like to see weighing in both summary and final focus. Overall, I need to see very clear extension of warrants and link chains throughout the debate for me to evaluate it properly, but ultimately I will vote for the team who presents the least mitigated link chain + best weighed impacts.
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.
Hello,
My name is Atul Kapoor. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.
I’m a lay judge with a good chunk of judging experience. To win my ballot: explain your arguments clearly and focus on quality over quantity. Speak at a pace that doesn’t make me feel like I need subtitles—no spreading, and keep the debate jargon to a minimum, please.
I judge only based on what’s said in the round, so do the work for me—don’t make me intervene. Crossfire isn’t going to sway me, so don’t bother trying. Use it to clarify your opponent’s case and hit back in your speeches. For me, crossfire is like background music: I’m barely tuned in.
Got a flashy extinction argument? Cool, but make it believable. If you’re claiming healthcare reform is the first domino to nuclear war, I’ll need more than just creative storytelling. If your opponents stretch logic like taffy, call them out—it shouldn’t just be me noticing.
Speaker points? Earn them with clarity, good pacing, articulation, and some eye contact. Bonus points for not sounding like a robot.
When possible, I’ll disclose my decision and leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, be respectful, have fun, and make this a great debate.
Good luck!
Hi I'm David I debated for 4 years at Strake and have been judging for 3r
-a good standard for extending an argument in the backhalf is if a spectator came into round during summary they should be able to understand how your argument works and why its true (by true I mean a reasonable explanation for why something happens)
-weighing is important but it needs to be comparative its not enough to say ours happens first you have to explain why thats more important than whatever issue you have with their timeframe
-Ill evaluate whatever you want to read dont let me curb your enthusiasm but im not as familiar with progressive arguments so youll have to make sure you explain things well
-speed is fine but I prefer when rounds are slower the more you clear and articulate you are the better the round is
-please keep cross fire civil people are too competititve trying to get in questions and answers and people get aggressive and I dont like that I like when teams go back and forth with one question each you can follow up on your question after your opponent has the opportunity to ask you something
I dont need to be part of the email chain if yall want to do an email chain please try to get it set up before round to avoid unecessary delays
Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC
Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com
BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).
CLIFF NOTES
- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.
- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.
- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot
- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me
- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.
- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.
- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.
SOME THOUGHTS ON PF
- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.
- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.
- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.
- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.
- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.
- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.
OTHER THINGS
- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.
- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.
- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.
I am a traditional judge. I would like to see the consistency in your arguments throughout the debate.
Please speak clearly, and do not go too fast! You'd rather get your point through me, not just incomprehensibly throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).
Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do a bit of research on the debate topic before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!
Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date.
Please track your prep time accurately. I will not track prep time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you spend. Do not steal prep.
You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com.
(Please, please, please, unless you are well prepared for a theory round, do yourself a favor and strike me if you don't cut accurate cards, don't send evidence in email chains, or don't disclose at circuit tournaments.)
Background: He/Him/His; 3L at NYU Law; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC); previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024.
Email Chains: Please add nmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.
Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards.
Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.
Main PF Paradigm:
-
Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.
-
Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.
-
Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.
-
Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).
-
New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary
-
Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.
-
Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
-
Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.
-
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.
"Progressive" PF: Topical substance debates on Somaliland would be ideal, but I'm open to the following arguments at varsity/open national circuit tournaments:
-
Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.
-
Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine but the closer they are to frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck), the likelier I will not vote for it.
-
Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.
Questions? Ask before the round.
My email is baylordb8@gmail.complease make an email chain before the round and send all docs and evidence for each speech.
My Background: I did PF in highschool for four years, ranked #1 win rate in the state of Montana for two years, won state my senior year, and was an NSDA national qualifier for three years in a row. I currently do policy debate at Baylor University.
Top Level: Please do impact calculus, weigh the round, and weigh every argument you want to win! Even if you are making good arguments I need you to tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and what arguments I should be prioritizing.
I like to see line by line comparison and teams truly engaging with the others' arguments. If you listen to your opponent's whole speech and just say they are wrong with no strong explanation or offense, I am letting the initial argument stand. You have to engage with their arguments and tell me why it doesn’t stand and then say why your arguments are better. I will vote for the team that does a better job proving to me why their idea is better, not just why the other teams are bad. Tell me why you should win.
Speed: You can spread but send the doc and please be clear. Overall I prefer quality over quantity so if you can’t articulate strong clear arguments while spreading, then don’t spread. Regardless, slow down on the analytics and sign post where you want your arguments to flow.
Evidence: Please send full cards and all evidence read in your speech in the email chain. Low tolerance for clipping cards or misrepresenting evidence. Read direct quotes from your evidence, don't paraphrase.
Etiquette: Be nice to each other. I understand being passionate and by all means be passionate about your arguments but if you are blatantly rude, don't allow your opponent to answer your questions, or cut them off in cx, I will give you 20 on your speaker points. Even if you are technically winning the round I probably won’t vote for you, there is no reason to be rude, be kind to each other.
Cross: This is my favorite part of the round and you should use this time strategically. It is extra time to convince me of your arguments. What's said in cx you should be held to. Feel free to use this time to clarify questions, knock down the logic in their arguments, or make yours look stronger but don’t just ramble, make strong points and be nice while you do it like I said above.
K: I am not a fan of Ks in PF. If you do not have an alt you obviously don't have access to any of your arguments, have an alt! You have to prove that your alt actually does something, if you can’t I won’t vote for you.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.
If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
-- Paradigm
Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research (from any part of the library) rather than theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.
-- Biography
he/him
School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)
Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit)
I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.
Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021.
Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.
-- Logistics
The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.
Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".
The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".
If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.
-- Misc
I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.
I did PF for four years at Durham Academy. I'm a sophomore at NYU Stern, and I coach for Charlotte Latin.
Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu and charlottelatindebate@gmail.com
TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments. I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing.
Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.
To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.
Signpost AND IMPLICATE. please. Nothing new past summary.
Cross is binding, but bring it up in speech if something important happens.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible.
Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.
Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.
Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read in the speech immediately following the violation.
My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.
Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Good Ks are really good, and bad Ks are REALLY bad. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.
howdy,
former HS/Collegiate competitor
I judge quite a bit
- treat others the way you want to be treated
- I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
- if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not there's an L waiting for you
- FOR PF debate!!!- I don't flow off the doc, I only look at it for evidence (only if you tell me to, also no email chains for me..)
- in any debate event... if you don't provide a FW or R.O.B I will default to your opponents
IE's -
MS/HS - you do youu!!
Collegiate - you know what to do
^ very big on binder etiquette
Congress -
no rehash
its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech
stay active thru round for high ranks
clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect
PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last
^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you
direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!
don't lie about evidence
PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...
love a good framework or Role of the Ballot round
no email chains for me, either google docs, nsda doc/drive or speech drop - if not oh well
if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it
evidence practices are pretty bad in PF, should you notice it LMK in speech and lets see what we can do
no speed/spreading in PF, talking fast is ok tho - speed or spreading and imma have a problem
tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two
Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks
Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess
^ gotta explain it , if not I am not evaluating
resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that
impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated
good luck going for a technical knock out
the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof is
paraphrasing is a BIG NO, read actual cards/tags
I like Disclosure Theory.... but if your wiki is BS and or not fully filled I will tear you apart
^ As a judge I know the rules better than you , don't preach them to me for this T
what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L
when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date
stop going over time !!
MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'
LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother
if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad
^ not gonna say clear
tech or truth?? somewhere in between
P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you
Trad - I'm an ok judge
K - HECK YEA!!!!!
LARP - I like it... but can go either way
Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/other T
^ auto strike!!
^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike
NGL - if your case is blippy I am probably gonna look for everyway to vote against you
CX - LOL
unless it's TRAD I won't judge
Worlds - I expect to see clash
don't paraphrase evidence
no speed, this needs to be conversational
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them
not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many
I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me
style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine
don't try a PF take on this event
the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose
Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!
Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !
Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡
Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com
ICC UNLV/Stanford/Cal RR/Cal
As the topic committee member who helped shepherd this topic to fruition I would probably be more skeptical than others on anything that questions the fiat power of the resolution. The resolution was presented over six months ago irrespective of who won the election. The Presidential election for sure has implications on the topic in many ways but anything that says POTUS would never accede just rejects the premise of debate and its educational purposes imo. Of course you can debate probable implementation or how a Trump/ICC co-exist effectively or not all day.
*"the Rome Statute" or "Statute of Rome" (never 'the Roman Statute')
Background
Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.
NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.
Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.
Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.
2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.
PF Paradigm
Judge Philosophy
I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.
1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)
LARP -1
Topical Kritiks - 3
Non-Topical Kritiks - 4
Theory - 5
"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8
Big Things
-
What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
-
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
-
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
-
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
-
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.
Little Things
- I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
- Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
- (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
-
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
-
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
-
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
-
Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.
-
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
-
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
-
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
-
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.
Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory
Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.
- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.
Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.
I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.
All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.
Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.
Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.
Niles West '23
Michigan State '27
Coaching at Berkeley Prep
Email Chain:hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com
Specific Args
Kritik:
Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. If your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take — I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.
Framework:
I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time.For me Impact articulation matters---when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives may overdetermine actions but you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts---explain the intrinsicness between your aff and the topic. I think the best way to beat neg standards is by turning predictable limits. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it. Oh I love it when the Aff team CX's on how fairness is an impact, framework teams seem to struggle on articulating the impact to it seems very circular by the end of it.
Topicality:
I am not very familiar with topicality on the IP topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.
Disadvantage:
yes plz. don't feel like you can only go for the k infront of me! ev comparison matters in these debates when its close so do it for me! I am not a fan of teams reading a bunch of definitions to get out of links, but if you justify it then fine...
Counterplans:
I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to. Do you need a solvency advocate? Probably. Will I vote for you if you justify not having one? Maybe...
Miscellaneous
I have read both k and policy oriented args throughout highschool and college. I would say more k in highschool and have been more flex in college.I will vote for anything---I refuse to intervene and leave my own bias's at the door before debates. Obviously I believe if an argument is dropped it gets 100% weight. But If I can not explain the argument after the end of your speech then you most likely didn't do enough work for me, I dont vote on claims without warrants.
I have started to flow on paper and most likely will when judging unless I forget flows. This being said if you don't give pen time, or enough indepth explanation for me to jot down a warrant (especially in rebuttals) it is your fault! I usually wont flow the 1AC or 1NC. I DONT FLOW OFF THE DOC! I'll read cards if I need to.
I have a high threshold for voting on theory other than probably condo, but I think condo is probably good but ill vote on it, I think the aff is in a bad spot when the 2AR is making new extrapolation on it, this is often what makes teams going for condo lose on.
I don't clear people its weird to interrupt flows of speeches imo but this means if ur unclear and i cant flow you its just not my fault. If you prefer being cleared please let me know before the round starts so I know everyone is on the same page.
Tech > Truth
Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.
I give high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks. If you aren't clear and I miss an argument, its your fault, so give more pen time between flows.
For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.
I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.
Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!
I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman
Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.
Kempner '20 | UT '24
Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu
its probably easier to message me on facebook though
30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptopI will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear
Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs
Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.
Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.
everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.
Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot
The Jist
- Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
-
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
- dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
- love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD
- "I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.
- My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"
Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents.dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough
- I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
-
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.
- If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.
- The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
- i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
-
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
-
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
- Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.
- DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP
- If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo
- take flex prep if needed
- Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2
- When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.
I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.
my emails for the chain are alexsun6804@gmail.com
charlottelatindebate@gmail.com
General Notes:
-Tech over truth
-Go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter. If you're spreading, send a doc in the chain if you feel like half of the speech isn't going to be super coherent.
-You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.
-Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.
For Rebuttal:
-Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
-First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want
-Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.
For Summary:
-Collapse on the most important arguments in the round
-This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.
-Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded
-General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense
-Always extend or explain your case in summary
For Final Focus:
-Should be very similar to summary with the exception to front lining and comparative weighing
Other Stuff:
-Have cut cards ready if something is called
-Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume
-I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. In general, disclosure and paraphrasing theory are examples of shells that I will be happy to evaluate. No frivolous theory, there needs to be quality warranting for drop the debater or drop the argument that could potentially make the interpretation a norm after the round. For Ks, I'm familiar with identity K's, securitization, set col, but feel free to run other Ks if you think it's important. I've judged rounds that involve tricks, and usually, it gets crazy, so go for them only if you feel like it's necessary to win the round. I'll do my best to evaluate progressive arguments if it goes down in the round.
-Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.
Good luck in round
Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.
tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
Updated: 09/10/23
Debate:
Please preflow before the round starts to expedite the round especially when it's flighted
I won't disclose unless I specifically say at the beginning of the round
LD Debate:
Argumentation:
I value your ability to communicate your arguments the most out of anything else in round. Students often have interesting arguments whether progressive or traditional but if you struggle to communicate those arguments effectively, you'll lose me. It isn't my job to fill in the gaps of arguments and make links for you, if the arguments themselves aren't fleshed out and conveyed in a manner that makes sense it isn't my job to do it for you.
!!No Frivolous Theory!! - I think this makes for a bad round, if there's legitimate abuse within round that's the only time I believe theory should be run.
Speed:
If you intend on spreading, I request a speechdrop, otherwise I won't be able to keep up.
Line-by-line vs Big Picture:
I'd prefer a balance of both, I want you to go line-by-line on the most important arguments but overall crystallize and provide the big picture for me.
Speech:
What I look for:
-Speeches that flow well from point A to B, which means ensuring you transition well and organize your ideas well
-I prefer an abundance and variety of sources to be used which I want your own analysis of as well (especially in extemp)
-I value your ability to create a speech that's informative, flows well/is organized well, and has an abundance and variety of sources over your ability to speak well - but good speech should be written well and performed well, but if I have a preference then it's: well-written speech > well-performed speech, because the first shows me depth and substance that the latter doesn't
Bach Tran (he/him)
Seven Lakes '23
UT '27
Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com
If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com
-------------------------
tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics
If you think you can win without flowing, strike me.
Tech > Truth, but I won't vote for incomplete/unwarranted arguments, and arguments that the tabroom/higher authorities forbids me to. What you choose to read and my own biases are largely irrelevant to the RFD if you explain your stuff and tell me what to do. Weighing, judge instruction, and evidence/warrant comparisons are key to getting my ballot.
Very few issues are ever matters of yes/no by default - as such, I think you should debate everything in terms of relative risks and probabilities unless you are willing to invest time in asserting otherwise. The only thing where this does not apply is whether a team violates a theory interpretation.
Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments - out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. Egregious -isms in round however will result in an L and the lowest speaker points I can give (read: be kind and a decent person).
I like and will reward creative and bold strategies (e.g., heg good against the K) and/or excellent research & knowledge generously with points. You are playing a dangerous game asking for 30s.
Please be on time and minimize dead time. The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that.
Feel free to ask questions in person or via email.
Evidence
- Speech docs/ev sharing are almost non-negotiable - please refrain from sending stuff that aren't verbatim documents.
*2025 update: google docs = auto 25s. Don't try me.*
- Speed is fine, unclearness is not. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with no docs at top card speed, you should strike me.
- I flow on paper, straight down, without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts
- You can insert rehighlights if they are short and you explain the implications. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.
- Ethics issues will stop the round - W30s if I think you are correct, L0 otherwise. Instructions from the tabroom will of course override this.
- Please tell me to read cards - no "read X card," yes "read X card it doesn't assume [thing]"
-------------------------
Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible.
The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. You should also strive to minimize the amount of buzzwords, for they will not substitute proper debating (or lack thereof).
Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on the analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.
It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.
K Affs: the 1ac should defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (it can be more). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms)
Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.
Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff.
-------------------------
PF Stuff
Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.
Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.
Please stop having prepositions as taglines
Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.
Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners
Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other (e.g., "MAD checks" is not a complete argument).The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous.
I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing arguments instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.
-------------------------
Random Pet Peeves
- "Speech begins in 3,2,1..."
- "Speech begins on my first word"
- "Can I take prep"
- "The moment you affirm"/"try or die" (do real weighing pls)
- Card text in email body
- Sending "rhetoric"
Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.
Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge
*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob
General
E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com
With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.
DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.
CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.
Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.
K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.
If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.
1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.
2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.
3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.
4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.
____________________
Other notes:
Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.
Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.
Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.
Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.
Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...
Open CX is okay with me.
Tech > Truth most of the time
No Tricks
ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.
PF Specific Notes
I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.
Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.
For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner blippy arguments unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.
Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.
If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.
IE
All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.
Cranky old man moment: Ask yourself this question, how many times have I done speech drills this week? If it's less than two, I don't wanna listen to it.
Who am I?
Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present
Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present
Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014
During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.
My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.
This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?
Prior to the round
Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.
The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.
The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.
I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.
Non-negotiables
I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:
-
You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
-
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
-
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
-
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
-
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.
-
I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?
-
Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.
Negotiables
These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.
Tech vs truth
To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.
Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.
There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.
I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.
Theory
In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.
Is disclosure good? Yes
Is paraphrasing bad? Yes
Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.
That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.
Kritiks
Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a white pomo tradition/understanding(French high theory). Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.
Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.
Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.
I previously coached LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.
Disclaimer: I have not judged many online rounds this year and would really appreciate it if tags were read slowly and if you prioritized clarity over speed! I'm sure a lot of my paradigm is dated (I wrote most of it a couple of years ago) so feel free to ask for clarification on anything :)
As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.
I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.
You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. When spreading, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times if necessary, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything and have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.
Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!
My email is zollomargarita@gmail.com, I would love to be added to the email chain!