• High school public forum debater
• Did middle school parli for 2 years
• Don't do long intros about your name/school/side/favorite color it's on the ballot for a reason
• No repetitive/assumed framework (if resolution is on balance don't say framework on balance) - you also don't need a framework -however if you feel that the resolution is too biased, and both teams come to a consensus on framework, I may vote off of the framework > resolution (but make this very clear in weighing)
• Time yourself/your opponents
• I love POIs + heckles but they have to make sense to earn points
• Use your time efficiently - forfeiting time will lead to point deduction
• Road maps should be integrated in your speech - no off time roadmaps
• Speeches should be cohesive between speakers - I want the flow to flow
• Weigh! Talk about clash! Make it easy for me to vote
• Scoring between 5 and 15 (you must use time efficiently in order to get >10)
• I believe in low point wins speaking ability ≠ debating ability

Hello! I'm excited to be judging in the middle school circuit this year. Here's a little bit about me to build credibility: I was an award-winning middle school debater and I am currently an accomplished Mock Trialer. As a senior in high school, I know exactly what it was like to be in your shoes, so I'm familiar with what a middle school debate tournament entails.

Now, onto expectations (everyone's favorite part)! In a debate round, I expect everyone to be cordial and well-mannered at all times. Heckling is accepted when helpful, but I will start taking points off the minute it becomes disruptive or uninformative. I know talking quickly is appealing. However, you will get just as many if not more points if you are well-paced and talk at a moderate speed. I am happy to provide personalized feedback at the end of the round and feel free to ask more about what will and won't earn points when we get into the room. Roadmap at the start of your speech; if I can't follow your argument, you aren't going to win. COUNTER! If you don't knock down your opponent's points, it doesn't matter how many you made. Rebuttals and weighing will likely determine if you win the round. It doesn't matter if you're the world's greatest speaker if you don't make good points. Finally, please, please use all of your time. If you sit down two minutes into a five minute speech, you're proving to me that you don't have anything important to say. Repetition and rebuttal are your friends, please make them happy.

hey, i'm harrison (he/him), and i debate for Walt Whitman High School in PF.

*THIS WAS MADE WITH HIGH SCHOOL PF IN MIND; IF ANYTHING DOESN’T MAKE SENSE OR ISN’T TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL PROCEDURE, ASK ME BEFORE ROUND*

add me to the chain: hjwalley2006@gmail.com

i prefer a google doc w/ rhetoric and cards, but you can also send a PDF. if any of this isn't accessible for you, it's 100% fine if you don't send. maybe disclose on the wiki if you're not able to send evidence during round

*seeing as there's no place on OpenCaseList to disclose for middle school, middle schoolers do NOT have to disclose*

ask me about anything confusing in the paradigm if you have questions

TLDR:

this is probably the most standard tech paradigm you'll ever read; literally debate like you're doing any other tech round and it'll be good

tech>truth, run whatever you want as long as it's not exclusionary

defense isn't sticky

PLEASE STRIKE ME IF YOU DON'T READ CUT CARDS

i guess you can do new weighing in 1st final; definitely nothing new in 2nd (i’d much prefer solid weighing in first summary)

extend at least uniqueness, link, and impact

comparative weighing please

prob not the best person for prog; i can maybe evaluate theory, but k's are probably a no-go (april 2024 update: i can evaluate really well implicated, fairly stock k’s, but if you get screwed bc i was never a prog debater, please don’t blame me)

let me know if i can make your experience better; if both teams agree that my paradigm sucks, you can ask me to change it for the round

General Debate Stuff:

i think that judge intervention is really bad for debate. don't make me intervene; do comparative weighing, extend your args, leave defense on your opponent's case. you, your speaks, and i will all be happier if you do that

if it's not on the flow, i'm not voting on it

collapse - it makes the round really messy when someone goes for 4 blippy arguments

signpost - please help me know where i should flow...

Evidence:

i won't call for cards unless someone explicitly tells me to

if you send cards, i might look because i'm interested, but i won't intervene on bad evidence. the other team has to explicitly tell me that it's fabricated to the point i can't evaluate it, or just run an IVI or do an ev challenge

if you take like 2+ minutes to pull up a card, i'll probably tank your speaks and will take it as an analytic

Speeches:

constructive:

i'm probably not the best judge for speed. if i can't understand you, i'll say "clear" three times before i just stop flowing. not gonna flow off of a doc, so just make sure that you're actually speaking in a way that i can understand

2nd constructive can respond to 1st if they want. just make sure to at least say, "onto their case" or something to just let me know (but like probably just don’t; i don’t see many scenarios where it’s actually strategic)

rebuttal:

if you're able to, send any cards (or a speech doc) you're reading for rebuttal before your speech

i think it's smart to weigh in rebuttal, but not necessary obviously

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline

strategic collapses in 2nd will result in a happy judge and happy speaks

summary:

extend

if the other team does a really bad extension, call it out and tell me why i can't vote for them (if there's no extension at all, i won't vote on it)

at least give me uniqueness, link, and impact; internal links and warrants are nice, but at least have that

definitely weigh (i'm of the opinion that probability weighing is usually bad and just new defense, but i guess it's a weighing mechanism, so utilize it)

final:

needs to mirror summary

extend, again

if your opponents are using different weighing mechanisms than you, it's probably strategic to tell me which mechanism to prefer (metaweigh, anyone?)

if your partner didn't weigh in 1st summary, 1st final can do new weighing (no new prereqs or link-ins; that's just abusive)

no new implications or args from 2nd final; i won't flow them

cross:

i'll listen, definitely won't flow it

if there's something important, bring it up in the next speech

Prog:

theory:

i guess i understand theory. if you have to know, i think paraphrasing is really bad, disclosure is probably good. i default text over spirit, RVI's, and Competing Interps (reasonability for TW theory). all of that can change if you just... give me warrants for why it should

read the shell the speech directly after the abuse happened. out-of-round abuses need to be in constructive

also, i want shell>substance layering at the very least in summary and final; if you're reading a shell in constructive, it's probably smart to do it in rebuttal

extend the shell every speech after it's read

don't read friv on novices; that's just dumb

april 2024 update:

middle schoolers can read theory that’s fine (still steer clear of friv)

it’s been a while since i’ve even thought about theory, but i’ll catch up on it before the tournament

k's:

i don't know too much about non-T k's, but i kinda get the gist of topical stuff. if you HAVE to read a k, just implicate it well and tell me why you win off of it

april 2024 update:

it's been a while since i've thought about k's too... if you have to read one, just don't spread it 300 wpm or more

tricks:

no, except for roko's. i like roko's (don't read tricks please)

i like what other people have said about tricks - if someone reads tricks on you, saying “tricks are for kids” is adequate and terminal defense

framework:

sure. framework should be extended in every speech after it's read. 2nd constructive should respond to framework in 1st

speaks:

speaks will probably be good

i'll start at 28.5, and go up or down from there depending on strategy

not gonna dock speaks bc of the way you dress, how you talk (unless you're spreading and you're incoherent), etc

L25 if you do something exclusionary

few ways to up your speaks:

a. read a funny impact turn

b. be nice

c. disclose on the wiki (ask me before round if you don't know how - i won't dock your speaks if you don't disclose) +0.5 speaks if you do

d. do smart prereq stuff

e. actually engage in substantive clash in a cool and strategic way

other stuff:

i'll disclose if i'm allowed to; ask me privately to disclose speaks if you want

postround if you want, but be nice about it

be funny if you want, but there's a line between being funny and being a jerk

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)