Tabroom.com

Tim Averill Invitational ONLINE

2023 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

PFV Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Colin Adamo Regis High School

Al Arthur Concord Carlisle High School

Timothy Averill Waring School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:24 PM EST

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and recently at Waring School from 2005 -2025. I have coached national champions in both policy debate, public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I also coached the 2024 NSDA National Champion in International Extemporaneous speaking, although I take scant credit for his success, but that fact may explain why I favor fact based public speaking over debate jargon, tricks, and games. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Jodie Babitt Newton South High School

Elizabeth Barber Phillips Exeter Academy

Magdalena Belev Natick High School

Junaid Bhatra Westford Academy

Last changed on Sat October 28, 2023 at 11:43 AM EST

Introduction
I value a structured, logical, and persuasive argument supported by credible evidence. My paradigm aims to evaluate which team did the better job of effectively communicating their side of the resolution through sound reasoning, in-depth analysis, and a balance of logic and emotion.

Case Construction
A strong case will have a clearly outlined framework with contentions that flow logically and build upon one another. Cases should be built on factual evidence from reputable sources, not just opinions or speculation. I evaluate the depth of analysis on each contention more than the quantity of arguments. Cases focused on a few well-developed arguments are preferred to shotgun approaches covering many shallow points.

Crossfire
In the crossfire sections, I look for direct clash between opposing sides. Debaters should actively listen and directly address key points made by the opponent. Thoughtful questions that draw out implications and probe assumptions are rewarded. Crossfire should build on or wrestle with ideas already presented, not launch entirely new arguments. Overall, I value respect and professional decorum during crossfire.

Rebuttals
Rebuttals should methodically address the central clash between sides and impact arguments. Do not ignore key points raised by opponents. Use evidence and reasoning, not just assertion, to diminish an argument's relevance or validity. I will evaluate which team most successfully undermined the opposing case while bolstering their own.

Delivery
Speak clearly, maintain eye contact, use effective gestures, and project confidence. But be yourselves - I want to see genuine passion for the arguments you make. Stay engaged even when not speaking and be respectful of opponents. Adhere to time limits and maintain professional decorum.

Summary
I aim to critically evaluate arguments while appreciating the hard work required for participation. My paradigm emphasizes in-depth analysis, credible evidence, attention to central clashes, and professionalism. The team able to persuade me through sound logic and reasoning that their side is correct will win my ballot.

Harry Burke Boston University Academy

Last changed on Fri October 27, 2023 at 1:42 PM EST

I do not personally have experience with formal speech and debate, however I have a background in philosophical and scientific discourse through my career in scientific research. This is my first time judging. Please try to speak clearly and stay relaxed- I am looking forward to hearing your ideas. I will not interrupt you if you are speaking too quickly; I rely on you to make sure your points are coming across. However, I will not not be too harsh on the superficial aspects of your debate unless they obscure the logic of your argument. Please avoid unexplained use of jargon. If you wish to use technical terminology that is not common knowledge, please define it first.

The most powerful argument is one that can be clearly understood. I prefer clarity, concision, and coherence of argument over style and verbosity. While pathos and ethos are powerful tools of persuasion, I am looking for the logos, that is, the logical structure of your argument, to convince me. Make sure your conclusions follow from your assumptions and evidence using some form of inference. It is not enough for something to be 'obvious.' Be comprehensive about the different aspects of your argument, but try not to include unnecessary information. I will not necessarily penalize you for this, but it may distract from your argument.

Make sure to respond to all of the other team's criticisms and rebuttals, at least briefly. I would rather you provide a weak response to a valid criticism than none. An unopposed criticism is a strong detriment your argument. If a criticism of your argument seems invalid or incorrect on its face, make sure to very briefly say why. I do not consider it a 'win' if you catch the other team on small technicalities. You must provide a more compelling argument as a whole.

Judging of arguments

In a rough sense, an argument or plan is 'better' if it produces an outcome that maximizes some metric(s) derived from one's moral values. Thus, I will explicate some cursory details regarding my moral sense that dictate how I judge actions and ideas in the world, and consequently, your debate arguments.

In short, I believe that society should be structured, and decisions should be made, such that human beings are free to find purpose and do things that make them happy, so long as those actions do not cause undue harm to others. This means that actions, especially at the level of nations, should maximize freedom and minimize people's ability to harm others and restrict their freedoms. The balance between restricting harm (laws) and maintaining freedoms is one important subject of debate, as freedom can obviously not be without limit.

You should address the consequences of your argument, both intended and unintended. If you can provide a rationale explaining how your side of the resolution 1) Reduces harm done to human beings in the world in the long run, 2) does not restrict people's freedom beyond a point that you deem reasonable (both through intended and unintended consequences!) and does not contradict fundamental moral principles of society (one might argue that eugenics is immoral on its face, no matter what the outcome might be!), and 3) is feasible, I will consider that a good argument.

Luke Carreon Dexter High School

Me Me Chan Lambert High School

Dharmender Chandok Newton South High School

Jin Chang Hunter College

Victor Chen Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 8:20 AM EST

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EST

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Neal Collins Regis High School

Ben Darnell Dexter High School

Gabriella Detrick Palo Verde High School

Claudia Diaz Regis High School

Joe Diaz Winston Churchill High School

Lindsay Donovan Milton Academy

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:37 PM EST

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
"Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread I do not flow. I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

Sela Emery The Bronx High School Of Science

Brixz Gonzaba Davidson Academy Online

Lisa Gring-Pemble James Madison HS

Jerry Guan Lambert High School

Nate Guinta Dexter High School

Phil Harris Sharon

Tim Haskell Concord Carlisle High School

Tianle Hu Newton South High School

Anusha Jain Seven Lakes High School

Zhihua Jiang Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Alok Kapoor Newton South High School

Nancy Keating Newton South High School

Victoria Kelleher Boston University Academy

Karsten Keller Dexter High School

Edward Kemelmakher Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 4:36 AM EST

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

FOR NCFLS:I've never watched a policy round in my life, treat me like a 5 year old (some of them are probably smarter than me).

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Mohammad Khan Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Brian Kinney Newton South High School

Grant Kletter Regis High School

Parker Klyn Theodore Roosevelt High School

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:15 AM CST

Parker Klyn, Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA)

Call me Parker, Mr. Klyn, or judge, whichever you're most comfortable with.

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

**********

Judging Philosophy

I used to have a much longer paradigm but found that few students actually read it. If you're interested, it's linked here. Below is all you really need to know.

Tech over truth. The only arguments I won't vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad." I am happy to adjudicate the round the competitors want to have, whatever that looks like.

Write my ballot for me (utilize clear judge instruction) in the final speeches. Offense/defense, the flow determines all, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I do not flow off the doc.

Outside of that, to cast a ballot in your favor, I need two things. First, I need complete extensions of whatever argument you're going for in each speech. Second, I need to be able to articulate the link story that resolves your offense, whatever that offense might look like. If one or both of those requirements are not met, I am comfortable holding the line even if those arguments are "won" on the flow.

LD Prefs:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

**********

About Me

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

I love judging. It makes me a better coach. You will always have my full attention in-round and I will do everything I possibly can to adjudicate the round fairly and completely. Ask as many questions before/after the round as you like.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too. Debate has allowed an awkward kid like me who grew up in Grinnell, IA (population: 9,000) to flourish as an educator and coach. I'm an open book: if there's anything I can do to help you learn, just ask. I value the educational aspect of debate far beyond any competitive result.

COME LEARN DEBATE FROM ME! NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate. We have a stellar staff including Bashir Eltyeb (Iowa City West, TOC semifinalist), Michi Synn (Canyon Crest, dozens of bids), Devin Lester (Lakeville North, 3x TOC), and Ingrid Alg-Liening (Theodore Roosevelt, 3x Gold TOC). We support students of all experience levels, from brand-new novices to national circuit contenders. If you have any questions about camp, come talk to me (preferably after my ballot has been submitted).

William LaMoure Regis High School

Anthony Layton Winchester High School MA

Stephen Leo Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Jenny Li Hunter College

Yu Li Richard Montgomery High School

Alexander Lin Newton South High School

JOHN LIN Eaglebrook School

Alex Litovchenko Boston University Academy None

Amy Little Norman North High School

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 3:17 AM CST

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

Gang Liu Bergen County Academies

Yu Liu Bellaire

Evan Mao Winston Churchill High School

Dylan McEntyre Coronado HS

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 5:01 AM EST

mcentyredylan89@gmail.com

I went to James River (‘22) and did PF mainly on the local VHSL circuit. My judging stats

Pref sheet: I’ll evaluate anything that isn’t exclusionary, but there are some arguments that I’m definitely not as good with.

Larp- 1 (This is what I’m most comfortable with and judge most often. I prefer judging substance debates where both sides are prepared to do solid comparative analysis.)

T/Theory-2/3 (I like it when you can clearly explain both the in-round implications of the violation and why your model of debate is better.)

K-3 (Generally, I view Ks as disads where the alt is a counterplan. I think you should be able to explain who does the alt, what doing the alt entails in literal terms, and how the alt solves the harms discussed in the K)

Phil-4 (Not that familiar with it other than util and think the in round implications of Phil can be clearer.)

General:

- Try your best and have some fun. Authenticity is far more persuasive than manufactured politeness.

- I flow by ear and try not to intervene. Judge instruction and comparative weighing are the best ways to minimize intervention. Slow down in the back half of the round and make things clear. Do the comparison and tell me why to prefer your arguments. You can read an awesome response, but if you don’t tell me what it means for the round and why/how it factors into my decision then it’s just more words on my flow. After judging for about a year, the teams that do the best in front of me are comparing each part of the argument they collapse on, telling me why theirs is better, and using judge instruction to write the ballot for me.

- I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

PF specifics:

- Evidence exchanges take too long. Y'all should send speech docs with all the evidence you read.

- Second rebuttal needs to frontline the argument you’re going for and turns

- Defense isn’t sticky. If you want me to care about a response, extend it in summary

Speed/Speaker points:

- Clarity>>>speed. Some speed is fine(~275wpm) but don’t sacrifice all of your clarity to go fast. Slow down on taglines and signpost more than you think you need to..it’s important. I’ll say clear twice before I give up

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be generous

~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before or after the round. Also, feel free to email me with any of those questions or concerns.

Thank you, Castelo..debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching.

Jim McGibbon Regis High School

Brian McSherry The Bronx High School Of Science None

Leah Merritt Newton South High School

Adam Meskouri Ernest W. Seaholm High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:10 PM EST

NOTE: YOU SHOULD READ THIS YOU SHOULD PROBABLY READ THIS YOU SHOULD READ THIS

Seaholm'21 (PF -- was bad at debate)

University of Michigan'25 (PF/Policy -- became far less bad at debate)

?'27 (currently applying to masters programs lol)

Email chain: Meskouri@Umich.edu

I have ~9 years of experience with debate and have extensively coached various PF teams, many of whom have done well on the national circuit.

TLDR: (by PF standards) great for soft left, the k, weird/garbage args, most theory stuff. I enjoy these rounds! Read the stuff you can't read in front of other judges! I will evaluate literally anything!

----------

Top Level

My thoughts on debate change frequently. The following is generally unflinching:

Tech > truth, absent technical arguments made to the defense of truth as a paradigm. That said, I'd much rather evaluate the way this game was played than discern whether a presented argument was "true."

By PF standards, I have evaluated everything (I very frequently find myself judging performance, tricks, theory, IVI, whatever -- I see more of these rounds per capita than probably 95% of PF judges). I like to think that I'm a good judge for whatever experimental garbage you want to read (besides high phil).I actively implore teams to read experimental garbage. I do not think that PF should be less of a game than Pol or LD. I wholly encourage debaters to use my rounds for doing/practicing things that they can't deploy in front of other judges (bc, y'know, PF judging kinda sucks sometimes. Many of my 2-1s are craaaaazy parent screws lol). You should be slowing down in the back half and on tags.

To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, death good, T-3 tier, prefiat/postfiat K, debates about debating about debate, theory, meme, science fiction, etc etc) so long as you aren't blazing (>250 wpm) through them. I genuinely enjoy debates about debate.

Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable unless it's a slow MIFA round) & 2AC/2NC docs with all new ev and (only if you can) analytics. I will cap speaks if docs are not sent.

I am not the judge for 50 analytics + no doc ngl please for the love of everything don't do that to me

I'm a pretty normal tech judge on substance. Know the difference between a link turn and a DA. Second rebuttal has to frontline no matter what. New weighing in first final is fine. Both teams should weigh. I had some braindead take last year that was like "weighing lowk not that important" but I now vehemently disagree with that obviously incorrect sentiment. New stuff in second final is lame-o. I am going to go on instagram reels during cross. Make my life easy by extending dropped responses. Beyond that, no major notes from me!

This mostly applies to MIFA: Some of y'all don't understand the purpose of framework -- you can't just be like "the framework is util, go to case!" Gang, framework a) needs to be justified (e.g. why does util outweigh? you need to tell me why my worldview should shift in this particular round, ideally with cards lmao) and b) has to harbor a clear strategic advantage for you (e.g. it'd make sense for you to read a fw that says humor is what the judge should be voting on and then read a meme case, but it doesn't make sense for teams to flippantly assert without justification that I should be evaluating through util and then read, like, a normal case that has literally nothing to do with util beyond impacts of saving lives). Don't read thoughtless framework that does nothing for you.

High speaks (+0.5): Positive Malik Beasely reference (this is +0.8), garfield reference, or send a fun comic strip in the email chain. No, they do not stack. My rounds are typically very informal -- please use them to have fun and make jokes and stuff

----------

Misc

Sorry this para is so short -- ask me if you have spec questions. Otherwise, assume I'm hypertech on most topics unless it's a MIFA tournament lmao

Any iteration of the Anthro K/animals = 30 speaks probably

PF is undergoing a transformative experience wherein debaters are beginning to question the activity's foundation and the roles of competitors/judges who take part -- irrespective of my personal beliefs, I am more than happy to judge these rounds unless they're aimless and haphazard. Impassioned yet unrefined strategies are not aimless ones

Perfcons o/w 99% of the time

Thoughtful ballot disads persuade me

Meme cases are great

I think I have less of a negative predisposition towards death good than most judges do

Extinction vs. SV kinda bores me but I'm totally down to evaluate it. If possible, be unique in your interactions with these arguments!

Big fan of going for everything

Do not harass people. Do not be mean. Do not make others uncomfortable

TKOs are fine but lock in tho

I genuinely enjoy debates where teams read stupid garbage

Defense is sticky for locals

Idk why these bullet points are here they won't go away :(

Rafael Mier Waring School

Ram Miller Newton South High School

Surya Misra Ravenwood High School

Sonia Monga Langley

Janet Novack Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:13 PM EST

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Olamilekan Oderanti Davidson Academy Online

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:52 PM UTC

I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory

He/Him pronouns

Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

FLOW

I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial.

If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel.

A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs are very crucial to me. While debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH CONDUCT

I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.

WHAT APPEALS

Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.

Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.

Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.

Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Amanda Parker Natick High School

Griffin Patel Dexter High School

Sreelatha Purushothaman Dalton

Neetu Raina Sharon

Jay Ramineni Seven Lakes High School

Rose Reilly Dexter High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you! Good luck!

Jay Richardson Dexter High School

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 10:26 AM EST

Public Forum Debate:

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

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't drop an argument/A2 with no evidence, so long as it has a clear link to impact that makes sense and can be believed with no evidence. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge on an answer. I'll also be looking for you to flow arguments from crossfire and into speeches if you want me to flow them. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. In-time roadmaps take five seconds at maximum, you have the time for one. Speaking speed should be reasonable in Public Forum, and there shouldn't be any spreading. I will tell you to slow down so I can understand you. I want you to dedicate time to impact weighing through the entire round, especially in summary, so you can bring it up in final focus. Most of my focus when considering the round comes from the final focus, so hit those impacts. Don't worry about being repetitive.

On framework - I like frameworks, but they're not necessary in Public Forum. Regardless of if there is a debate on framework, if you have one, I want you to mention it in every speech so I can flow it through and use it in my judging.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end. As a note on collapse, if you plan to do it, mention specifically that you are collapsing so I don't think you dropped an argument on accident.

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

Forensics:

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

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

Andrew Scheufele Newton South High School

Erik Scott Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Carinn Stratford Regis High School

Ian Stratford Regis High School

Kevin Tung Stuyvesant High School

Brenda Turney Winchester High School MA

Ria Vasishtha Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 8:58 AM EST

sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.

for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.

from there, these are things to keep in mind:

--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

--TIME yourselves. I beg.

--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them. but it’s your choice

--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.

hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.

--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).

--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.

--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.

--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).

Christian Vasquez The Blake School

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 7:09 PM CST

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.

Ajith Vasudevan Newton South High School

Sahej Virdi Eden Prairie High School

Luiza Wilson McLean High School

Tianyi Yang Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 5:23 AM EST

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.

LD Paradigm for Manchester:

This is my first ever time judging LD so do with that what you will. I would default to most of the stuff from the policy paradigm. NOTE: it's been some time since i have judged a debate that had spreading so my ability to flow it may be worse than before but speed should not be too much of an issue.

Login to Tabroom

Tim Averill Invitational ONLINE

2023 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

PFV Judges Paradigm List

Judges