Tabroom.com

Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Gainesville, FL/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maria Alvarez New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 3:25 AM EDT

Hello Debaters,

My name is Maria Olga. I'm from the Dominican Republic, currently studying philosophy and law in Spain. I have experience in MUN, PF, and now I'm trying parliamentary debate, but now I focus primarily on coaching and judging PF. Debate is a discipline I deeply respect, and I expect the same from you—toward both your opponents and the format itself. I know the rules well, and I take note when debaters bend or disregard them.

General Approach

I appreciate a good clash of arguments, provided it remains respectful. I value organized debates with a clear storyline. By the end of the round, I expect to see which arguments still stand and how they’ve been collapsed (or boiled down). Please do not revive dropped arguments. Also, while I dislike spreading, I expect you to maintain a reasonable pace—don't talk at 2 mph!

Weighing

I'm a tech>truth judge, but don’t rely too heavily on tech, I value both tech and truth. Remember, debaters win rounds, not just cases. I appreciate strong arguments supported by evidence and statistics. I expect you to do your own weighing throughout the round, although I’ll also do mine. Be clear about why you’ve won and where, so I can factor that into my decision.

Progressive arguments

I don’t favor Ks, theory or progressive arguments for that matter in PF, as they stray from what debaters prepare for. I won’t flow these arguments, and you’ll have a hard time convincing me to vote on them. I value arguments based on the resolution and the preparation debaters put into it. However, I'm open to listening to them.

Cross-Examination (CX)

I love a passionate CX and I flow it, and I'll take it into account if it’s brought up in speeches. CX aggression is fine, but don’t overdo it, disrespect will lower your speaker points.

Speeches

1. Weighing: I weigh the round based on what’s standing at the end (factoring in defense and frontlining) according to the framework (FW). If no FW is established, I’ll default to the one that wasn’t dropped.
2. Impacts: All impacts should be warranted, linked, and supported with in-text citations to matter on my ballot.
3. Dropped Arguments:Arguments dropped after the summary are considered dropped and won’t factor into my decision.
4. Summary: Should focus on weighing and identifying voting issues. Weighing done solely in the final focus won’t be considered.
5. Final Focus: This is where I expect to hear a clear explanation of why you’ve won the round. No new evidence, arguments, or weighing—just tell me how and why you’ve won.

General Guidelines

1. CX can be aggressive but respectful; disrespect will impact speaker points.
2. Time yourself.
3. If asked for evidence, present it quickly or acknowledge if you can’t find it. Don’t waste time looking for it.
4. Don’t add me to email chains or evidence links.
5. I know the rules—don’t try to exploit loopholes. Disregarding the rules will cost you the round.

Asa Arnold Horizon High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 6:22 AM EDT

Hello everyone!

my name is Asa I am a current coach for Horizon High School in Orlando Florida. During my debate career I did 4 years of LD and PF. Because of that, I’m familiar with techy language and debate jargon but I’ll come out and say my experience in super progressive debate is limited so I’m cool with topical K’s, well warranted theory and counter plans but please make it super clear. Tech > truth unless the round is truly a wash then I’ll be forced to intervene. If it’s truly a wash after that I default neg because aff must prove why we must affirm the resolution. I can keep up with spreading but please if you’re going to spread please be good at it. Just because you emailed me your case does not mean you can mumble over it and expect me to flow all of the stuff emailed.

Procedural stuff. Keep your own time, if you go a few seconds over I’m not gonna be super annoying and cut you off. Just finish your sentence but anything passed that and I’ll stop flowing. Similar thing for cross ex. If you’re asked a question right as the time limit is up, I’ll give the opponent the choice of answering the question. If they answer it cool, if not I’m not holding it against them. If you guys wanna send cases that’s cool with me! I just ask you add me to the email chain.

For preferences, please weigh. Give me a reason to care about your arguments, don’t think that just saying “x is bad” is a good impact because I don’t know exactly how bad x may be. Weighing early and often without just using the buzz words scope and magnitude is an easy path to victory.

For PF especially,

the strongest teams I’ve coached, judged and competed against effectively collapse. Please do not try to win every argument because you will not have time to flesh out any single argument, making it harder for me to vote for you. Please sign post, if you are responding to their de link please tell me you are responding to their de link. Don’t just say “neg is wrong” and then give your card.

This is more of a nit pick thing but people tend to just call every response a turn. Don’t do that. Call it a turn if it actually is a turn but if you’re just proving something is untrue then don’t call it a turn.

I think the best debaters write the flow for me so try to think from that perspective.

Finally my biggest pet peeve by far is arguing during cross ex. Please please use cross ex to ask questions. If you are eager to read a response to their argument, please do not do that during cross because

it shows your hand, opponent has extra time to frontline
it is a waste of time, your opponent is not going to agree with whatever you’re about to say so why read it?

i apologize if this came off as overly negative. Debate is a super fun activity and I’m really looking forward to judging!

if you have any points that require further clarification feel free to reach out and email me!

azaspades@gmail.com

Obi Assali Palm Harbor University High School 5 rounds

Laura Aybar New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Julian Bahamon Hire 6 rounds

Jordana Bales The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 10:51 AM EDT

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

As a judge, I am receptive to almost all arguments, but I am personally triggered by arguments centered on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Please refrain from running arguments around this topic in front of me.

The roll of the ballot is always to vote for the better debater - The one that I understand and that makes sense.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it isimportant! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

SPECIFIC NOTE FOR POLICY DEBATE

Although I have been around policy debate for over two decades, I am still relatively inexperienced as a judge. This is a lay round. DO NOT SPREAD. Explain to me what your case is. Do not use debate jargon until you have explained it. I can only vote on what I can understand. Be logical and clear and I will vote for you. Be debate-y and fast and I may not be able to. If both teams do not follow these guidelines and I am unable to make an accurate assessment of the debate, I will make my best decision based on my limited understanding of the round.

Srinivasa Balmuri FAU High School 6 rounds

Stan Banks Horizon High School 3 rounds

Avinash Shashidhar Byakod Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 24, 2024 at 8:50 AM EDT

Former PF debater | avinash.byakod9999@gmail.com | they/them

PF Paradigm

LAY/FLOW: (Varsity/JV) Flay judge leaning on flow. Rhetoric might not win the round, but it has subconscious value and can improve speaks. Common jargon like extend, drop, cross-app, warrant, link, NU, NT is cool. If I ask for clarification on advanced jargon, it won't impact speaks. (Novice) Convince me with evidence and numbers to win the round. Tech will have very little consideration in novice unless a side brings up tech ideas.

SPEECH DOCS: If both teams are comfortable with sending judges constructive docs, do so at my email above. I will only verify evidence that has been contested and requires a review.

TECH/TRUTH: Truth makes an argument, tech extends an argument. Poorly explained arguments, rebuttals, or FTs that rely too heavily on tech will not be valued highly. There needs to be at least some logic and reasoning (even if it's bad logic) behind an argument, just saying a statement isn't very strong.

OFFTIME ROADMAPS: Highly encouraged. Shouldn't be more than 10-15 seconds.

EXTENSION/DROPS: I will try to keep track of this, but call out your extensions and opponent drops often including what speech it was extended/dropped from (signpost 24/7). This includes extending impacts, not just links. Reading new offense (other than turns) in rebuttal/summary isn't extended from case unless you simply expand on something you stated in case. If a turn is read, I expect it to be extended. Fully dropped args will not be considered.

CROSSFIRE: I don't mind who gets the first question when as long as it's agreed upon. If no standard is set, first speaking will have first question. Any notes I write are for speaker points. Unflowed, but if you bring up answers/questions from cross, it will be considered as part of the speech. Keep questions/answers to 30 seconds max and don't talk in circles to waste time. Let each other speak. Do not yell over each other.

KRITIKS/THEORY/PROG: I don't like prog in PF rounds unless it's egregious (evidence fraud, malicious lying, verbal abuse, etc), but will consider if it is strong. Disclosure theory is built on the idea that debaters who can't adapt to new ideas or surprises are better than those who can. Y'all have prep time and crossfires, figure out their argument instead of complaining you didn't know it beforehand.

SPEED: I am not super comfortable with extreme (policy level) speed. I will write what I can and remember what I can, but if you speak too fast, I may lose a critical part of your speech or miss an extension. If you insist on having 800+ words, please provide a speech/outline doc. Provide this doc to competitors as well if you want to spread to 900+ words.

EVIDENCE: If there is an email chain, link me in at avinash.byakod9999@gmail.com. If a piece of evidence becomes contested, I may ask to verify it.

PREP/SPEECH TIME: You and I will keep track, but my time is official. Running a few seconds over speech is okay and will be flowed, but don't abuse this or I may change my mind.

WEIGHING: Final impacts will be weighed based on the accepted framework. My default framework is a mix of util and value ethics. Weigh for me and I'm more likely to believe you. I love pre-reqs, but I need to believe them. Don't just state a pre-req, dive into how it is required and WHY. I will weigh on any framework. I've seen protection from alien threats and funniest arg wins be accepted frameworks, and I'm ready to judge on them.

SPEAKER POINTS: Unrelated to the outcome of the round. Yelling at opponents, gish gallop, excessive speed/spreading, and mumbling will lose points. Speak clearly and respectfully at all times. During opponent rounds, including FF, don't make disrespectful hand gestures unless it's funny. Make me laugh and get 31 speaks. Spin your pen for +5 speaks for skill points and -5 speaks for overconfidence.

Disclosure

Willing to disclose results, speaks, and rfd if asked. If you do not want disclosure or do not want any specific part of disclosure, feel free to leave at any point or tell me to stop. Ask questions or clarification at any point, but do not debate me and try to change my decision.

LD/Policy Paradigm

Limited experience with mocks. Read PF paradigm for evidence, prep time, speaker points, and off-time roadmaps. Prog debate is accepted, but I will still need to be convinced of its merits and its ability to outweigh the resolution. Disclosure thoughts remain the same, however. I understand speed is faster here, so speech docs are encouraged and speaker points will not be cut unless it's unintelligible. I am lay, but will try to keep the best notes I can based on my understanding of a round. Careful weighing and explanations are critical as I have little experience doing it myself.

Congress Paradigm

Very light congress experience, treat me as lay. I'll still try to keep notes ofc.
I know congress has a lot of rhetoric and strong speech skills are critical, but please have good argumentation (and refutation!) if you want a high rank. Please interact with other congresspeople's speeches when possible and be an active debater, not just a speaker.

Remember that if Mike Johnson, a man who doesn't believe in dinosaurs, can rank 1st in IRL congress, anyone can in debate congress.

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

If you read this whole paradigm please tell me if there are any issues or if you want me to expand on anything

Carolina Calonge Pembroke Pines Charter High School 3 rounds

Trent Carter Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 11:56 AM EDT

Exper: I competed for 4 years in Public Forum in high school. I've competed in local, state, and national tournaments.

On the balance, I'm Truth>Tech. I do evaluate the flow to judge the victor (dropped arguments are conceded, don't try to flow through ink etc). And Igenerally assume the arguments read for face value. The exception is for arguments with existential implications. Basically: If nuclear war or extinction is in any of your impacts,
your warranting needs to be especially rock solid and agree with reality. Without that, I will accept a reasoned response that the impacts are insufficiently warranted.

Before the start of the round and even before you get into the room assigned to you, please send me your case and in your case include each impact and link chainin bold. I like to know your impacts and links while reading your case so there is no confusion between you and I.

I understand as debaters we get very passionate about the topic but please stay respectful during the round. Crossfire specifically, I understand if you want to get your question in, but do not interrupt the other person.

I will call for a certain card at the end of the round if 1) it becomes central to the flow, 2) there is clash over it, AND 3) it is critical for me to render my decision.

Speed: If you've got a longer case and need to keep pace, you're fine. If you run the table of arguments and leave me and your opponents unable to understand you, your speaks and my verdict may reflect that. I'll kindly offer a warning if the speed gets too high.

Progressive Debate: If you don't need to, please don't run it. Not only am I not well-experienced with running/evaluating Theory, Ks, or any other
form of progressive debate, I have fundamental objections to their routine use in this event. If you're gonna give it a shot with me,
make it make sense, and I'll keep an open mind. If it's invoked without basis, I'll at best have a high threshold of belief.

If you're aiming for high speaks (29+): 1) signpost, warrant, and weigh; 2) be respectful; and 3) demonstrate knowledge of your case beyond the prose. Hint: if you do all three of these
things better than the other team, you're probably winning outright too. By this metric, the winners generally (though not always) have the higher speaks.

Of course, I consider challenges to the equality of humanity disqualifying.

Finally, I humbly repeat: signpost, warrant, and weigh. The clearer you are about where my vote belongs, the easier it is for me to award it there.

To be clear and for everyone to understand, please send me your case and include the impacts and links in bold BEFORE you enter the room.

I wish nothing but the best for all competing today.

Vincent Chen Millburn High School 1 rounds

Ben Cohen Hire 6 rounds None

Gabriella Davis Olympic Heights Community High School 4 rounds

Ishan Dubey Strake Jesuit College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:44 PM EDT

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.

Please read the applicable evidence rules for your tournament. I will enforce them.

Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.

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.

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.

Zach Dyar The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:29 AM CDT

Lakeland Note: My camera is not working for an "unknown reason" on NSDA campus. I am in your round if I'm in the room, just assume I'm not going anywhere.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com . Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad norms in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Alex Eidelkind Hire 6 rounds

Arturo Feliz-Camilo New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 16, 2024 at 10:11 AM EDT

**Arturo Féliz-Camilo**

Hello! I’m the head coach at Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons.

I have a background in law and have been teaching AP US History for a while. I tend to prefer economic, social, and historical arguments. Since 2013, I’ve primarily coached Public Forum (PF).

When judging, I really enjoy a good clash of ideas and creative analysis. I’m open to just about any argument, as long as you explain it clearly, warrant it, and back it up with relevant evidence. That said, being "open to anything" doesn’t mean I’m okay with distasteful arguments—keep it civil and respectful.

I don’t strictly fall into either the tech>truth or truth>tech camps. Think of me as closer to a lay judge. Just because “there’s a card” doesn’t mean I’ll automatically buy the argument. Make sure your arguments are well-explained and warranted. I need to understand what you're saying to be persuaded, so clarity is key.

Communication is crucial. If I can’t follow due to speed, I may not flow it. I usually won’t ask you to slow down because I prefer to avoid intervening, but if you’re spreading, that’s going to be a problem. I can handle a reasonably fast pace, but don’t expect to win by brute force alone.

I appreciate a respectful CX. If you need to ask for evidence, that’s fine, but don’t turn the round into an evidence battle. If you call for evidence, I hope you plan to actually use it. I listen to CX but don’t flow it. I’ll make note of interesting points in hopes they come up in the speeches. I almost never review evidence unless there’s a serious claim or ethical issue. If I feel like you misrepresented or misused a card, you’ll likely lose the round. I definitely prefer debates that are more conversational in pace.

Feel free to give an off-time roadmap—no need to ask, just go ahead.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case—don’t just read it. Weigh the arguments, link them, extend points, crystallize the round. Without clear framework and weighing, I’ll default to what’s standing at the end of the debate. Please don’t introduce new arguments in summary or final focus.

As for T's and K's, run them at your own risk. I’m not totally against them, but I tend to favor a good RVI and I’m not a fan of running these against inexperienced or novice teams. I also think T's get abused too often, so be honest with it. I’ll weigh what makes sense, including any real-world harms like abusive behavior or bad-faith misgendering.

Pettiness won’t win me over, but you should still stand your ground. A little sass is great, but there’s a fine line between sass and pettiness, so be mindful of that.

If you’d like feedback after the round, I’m always happy to share my thoughts, but know that I submit my ballots before offering feedback. I understand that some rounds (like bubble rounds) matter a lot, but I don’t check records before submitting my decision. I hope that regardless of the outcome, you leave each round feeling that it was a meaningful experience.

Please add me to your evidence chain: **arturo@arturofeliz.com**

Ashton Friedman Hire 6 rounds

Jaime Garcia New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 7:22 AM EDT

I am a former debater for the New Horizons Debate Team in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic with experience in both national and international tournaments. I believe framework debate is important as this makes it so ultimately the debaters themselves choose what framework is the one I should vote on. Please weigh the round as having me weigh it for you may not go in your favour. I am a judge who while flows all of the debate also takes into consideration performance and how the debaters managed themselves in the round when casting a ballot. Proper etiquette is a must. Ultimately, remember to have fun!

-NOTE:I am not a fan of K's, Theory and counterplans. It is highly unlikely for me to vote on one of them, I prefer for the debate to be revolved around the resolution and for both teams to clash on it.

SPEECHES:

For the speeches, I personally don't mind debaters talking fast, but only if they are understandable. If you can't handle the speed then slow down cause it is of utmost importance for me, as a judge, to be able to understand the strong points that you have so enthusiastically prepared.

CROSSFIRES:

I don't mind you standing your ground in crossfires, but you need to be able to maintain professionalism throughout the cross. If you want me to consider a point introduced or discussed in the cross you must extend it in your speech. I prefer for debaters to stand during crossfires, including grand crossfires(Doesn't apply to covid era debates for obvious reasons). I really don't mind heated crossfires as long as I can understand what is happening. In the grand crossfire, it is recommended for both speakers to speak.

FINAL SPEECHES:

I prefer and encourage teams to start outweighing the round since the end of the summary. In the last speeches, while it is good to mention and state how your opponents have lost, it is always better to focus more on how YOU have won the debate.

PREP TIME/SPEECH TIME:

Just for you to know, I am keeping track of your timers and if you exceed them by a considerable amount speaker points will be deducted from you. It is okay to finish a sentence if you already started it, but not okay for you to randomly extend your speech by 30 seconds. For prep time I am a bit more strict, you won't get even a single extra second for prep.

EVIDENCE:

Unless I consider that a piece of evidence can decide the round or one of the teams tells me to look at the evidence I would generally abstain from reading any evidence. As for teams who request evidence, if it is a weird argument I understand you may want to look at a specific piece of evidence. But, for teams who ask for an entire case worth of evidence, you will see a speaker points reduction, we came to debate not to wait 4 minutes between them searching and you reading cards after every speech.

Sebastian Glos Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 4th year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be spreading please just slow down on tags and author names, dont just go through it full speed.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat. I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the link of the K. Otherwise I am somewhat familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

Phil: nah.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

Zachary Goldstein Olympic Heights Community High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 5:35 PM EDT

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

ALWAYS check if the judge is ready.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine, even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, it better be reasonable. Don't make false accusations for the sake of confusing your opponents or catching them off guard.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll give you some grace, but I will also cut you off if you go too far over. When in doubt, play it safe.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary. It's a fine line, pick your battles accordingly. Don't pick every battle.

Don't let things go- if claims or frameworks go unrefuted, they drop- plain and simple.

If something is argued prior to grand cross, it can be brought back up in final focus. In other words: if you bring it in, then you make it fair game to be attacked or responded to.

FYI- I'm not keeping track of prep time.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing.

Late round speakers should not just rehash previously presented arguments. They should be crystallizing.

Please behave like actual senators/congressmen and congresswomen; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

Speech Events:

Originality scores the biggest points with me.

Eye contact always matters, but it matters more in speech.

Your tone holds a lot of weight, showing tonal range is crucial in all speech events.

Be aware of your timing, I am not reliable for hand signals.

In terms of piece selection or chosen topic: sad is fine, but funny is better. Make me feel something.

Ingrid Groose Charles W. Flanagan 6 rounds

Sophia Guarnieri Hire 6 rounds

David Hobson Park Vista Community High School 6 rounds

Alex Huang American Heritage Palm Beach HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 5:53 PM EDT

I’m Alex. I debated for Durham Academy in North Carolina for four years, and won the TOC in 2023. I am now a freshman at Swarthmore College and coach for American Heritage Palm Beach.

PLEASE READ — TL;DR

*Tech>Truth to the best of my ability.

*I prioritize high quality analysis over high quantity lack of analysis. I will not vote on blippy turns with no warrants, and case arguments with no internal links.

*Please send an email chain to alexander.huang@ahschool.com (no Google Docs), and label it properly: Yale Round 1: Durham HH (Neg) vs Taipei CW (Aff). Send docs before every speech and send them quickly.

*Every part of an argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant.

*I will vote by first looking to weighing and then links into the weighing, but feel free to make arguments for why I should vote otherwise.

*Second rebuttal must respond to first, and there should be nothing new past summary.

*Theory note: If you are initiating theory against novices/a team that clearly does not know how to respond, I won't evaluate under competing interps.

*Be nice please. Everyone is trying to learn, and everyone is trying to have fun. Don’t be a prick.

SPECIFICS

*Do not sacrifice analysis for speed and/or shenanigans. While “tech” in place of “truth” means that I try to limit the influence of my own personal beliefs to the maximum extent, it does not mean that the need for your analysis to be technically persuasive is absent. Smart analysis is always going to triumph over bad, unwarranted evidence. Tech debate that is in-depth and full of smart analysis is so much fun. Tech debate that is fast blips that are unwarranted misconstructions of bad evidence is boring and noneducational.

*Speed is fine, but be clear. Slow down on tags and in the back half. Use speed strategically. 3 slow minutes of the best argument in the round is always going to beat 18 mediocre arguments read at lightning pace.

*Cross is binding, but must be brought up in speech

*Implicate good defense against weighing. There is a trend in PF where both teams try to find the quickest link into extinction, and all defense goes out the window. I am not a fan. If you are winning terminal or near terminal defense against an extinction outweighs + short circuit, tell me why I shouldn’t look there first. A 0.00000000000000000001% chance of something occurring rounds to 0, after all.

*Theory: It must be read in the speech after the violation. For your information (because I think there is inherently a little more intervention in theory debate, since we are debating about debate, and the persuasiveness of certain responses is going to be based on what I have seen in debate), I think paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good, but I would be willing to vote any way on theory.

*Ks: I have a relatively high threshold for a quality K. I think a quality K is very educational, and also fun to watch. However, to be a quality K, a K should be treated like a research project – high quality work that is clear, done yourself, and disclosed for others to interact with. I have a very low tolerance for Ks that are stolen from LD or Policy, read against teams who barely link, and are generally unintelligible. Such Ks will lose very quickly to “no link/alt doesn’t solve/no impact” responses.

*Non-starters: no tricks, no speaks theory, no friv theory, and no ad-homs.

*Post-rounding: Post-rounding is educational, but be polite and curious. I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

Kate Hubbell Palm Harbor University High School 6 rounds

I am a former PF Debater in the National / Florida circuits and am now currently an IB English teacher & Debate Coach for Palm Harbor University High School.

This will be my first season as a judge/coach and I look forward to meeting all competitors from around our country and seeing how much debate has evolved since my time as a competitor!

Important Notes for Rounds:
As much as your cards and contentions matter - so too does your behavior. Manners and humility go a long way, and I believe are foundational to both a functional and productive debate rounds.
I don't believe in speed reading - if your contention needs that much explanation and evidence to be understood, then I'm not the judge for you. You should be able to speak at a clear and understandable pace - so that flowing your round is not impossible and I may actually keep track of contentions, rebuttals, responses, etc.
Pet peeves: excessive card calling (just for the sake of card calling :/ ), debaters who are rude or arrogant with opponents or judges, eye-rolling, sarcasm, personal insults (etc.). I know as much as anyone that debate can get heated, but it is still supposed to be fun & exciting!
I want you to extend in your later speeches, collapse contentions when advantageous and ALWAYS tell me where I'm voting & weighing in summaries and FFs.
I understand that this is an activity that you guys pour hours, tears, effort & heart and soul into - I've been in your shoes! Don't forget to have fun, enjoy the art of the debate and remember that every round is an opportunity to learn and grow more as a debater (even if you think you're amazing already - I promise you have room for improvement)
I will always give you an extensive RDF and disclosure - unless time is crunched or you don't want the feedback!
Don't try to misrepresent, misquote or misuse evidence - I am a coach. I have read much of the evidence on your topic and am usually familiar enough to know when you're using it dishonestly.
I will flow the round but I also won't extend or make arguments for you - if your opponent makes mistakes, errors or concedes, you need to mention it yourselves.
I am vehemently against theory - I will not vote in your favor on most theory cases/shells. Unless it is absolutely necessary for actual valid reasons, I don't anticipate sending my ballot for a theory case. Especially when theory is run against novices in a "gotcha" kind of move. Not cool. Not smart. Not interesting. It ruins an opportunity for younger debaters to learn and enjoy a true debate round. (Exception: If it is two experienced teams, and both are capable to run theory/ debate it - I will consider it for its validity)

Send all speech docs to hubbellkate@gmail.com

Looking forward to a great year!

Ashley Inoa New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Kyle Jackson Suncoast Comm High School 6 rounds

Kiva James Trinity Preparatory School 4 rounds

Samuel Johnson Cary Academy 3 rounds

Diane Kapusinski The Geneva School 3 rounds None

David Kennedy Strake Jesuit College Prep 6 rounds

Robert Kent Palm Harbor University High School 5 rounds

Hasan Khan Hire 6 rounds

Madison Kim Hire 6 rounds

Samantha Koenig Charles W. Flanagan 3 rounds

Crawford Leavoy Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:36 PM EDT

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.

Sebastian Lescher Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 2:29 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Sebastian Lescher, and I was a PFer at Cardinal Gibbons High School for three years and am currently attending UF as part of the honors program. I also work for Champion Briefs on the PF writing team. I love speech and debate and think it’s a great place to discuss important topics. During my time debating, I qualified for NSDA, NCFL, FFL States, and TOC. Tbh I also feel compelled to say that I’m first year out.

PUBLC FORUM DEBATE: Short Version

Add me to the chain: sebastianlescher10@gmail.com

Tech>Truth; however, I’m not gonna vote on your link chains that stretch from here to the moon and for prog args, justlook at the prog args section

Terminalize/Weigh your impacts

SIGNPOST!!!

Know your evidence

If you have a lay and a tech case, please read your lay case to me.

I WILL NOT FLOWW OFF A DOC

Don’t exaggerate your impacts.

I don’t care what you wear, sit or stand, etc. Literally, as long as I can hear your argument, I’m good

Don’t be mean/rude

Ask me anything/post round me all you want; and literally feel free to ask me about anything, debate, UF, life, etc.

Use all your time when speaking. If you run out of things to say, literally just start rereading your case.

HAVE FUN

WEIGH: MAKE MY JOB EASY!!!

Spectators: idc, but ask your opponents their opinion. Also spectators should put their tech away.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE: Long Version

Speed: I’m fine with speed. Personally, I admire teams that can read a well-reasoned series of arguments in a conversational speed or tone, but I understand strategy and time constraints (I, myself, am definitely guilty of going fast.) If I can’t understand you, it won’t be on my flow. I will not flow off a doc.

Impacts/Weighing: PLEASE weigh in final and maybe even summary! If you don't weigh, then I will have to weigh for you, and you might not like the outcome. In fact, you probably won't. When weighing your arguments, please actually weigh them. By this, I mean that you should compare your arguments to those of your opponents and tell me why I should prefer yours, i.e. greater scope, magnitude, timeframe, etc. "Our impacts outweigh because they are true" is not weighing, nor is simply restating your impact and tacking on "so we outweigh on *insert weighing mechanism*" without analysis.

Comparing worlds if the resolution is passed is honestly the most effective way to weigh. This can be even better if you are “strongman”-ing your opponents argument.

CLIMATE CHANGE CAN NOT BE YOUR IMPACT FOR EVERYTHING!!! (Well, it can be, but it’s probably nonunique.)

DO NOT EXAGGERATE YOU IMPACTS OR CHANGE NUMBERS. Adjectives tell me nothing, number of lives tell me a lot more. If your number is one million lives, don’t tell me millions of lives. This might actually be one of my biggest pet peeves in debate, and if I catch you doing it, it may not be an automatic drop, but I will be upset. If your opponent is doing it, CALL THEM OUT.

When writing a case, make sure to terminalize your impacts. Don’t just tell me that a trillion dollars in debt is created or GDP will increase by 10 percent. That means nothing in the round. Tell me WHY that thing is good or bad. What does it mean for the people? How many lives are saved? How does not being unemployed help someone? Basically, it should come down to who saves the most lives.

Cross: I like to think cross is for debaters to figure out stuff about each others arguments (clarify cases, knowing how the other person’s case works, etc.). I really don’t think you should be introducing new arguments in my decision, and I won’t be flowing them. However, they won’t have absolutely no impact on my decision, just less of an impact on my decision than an actual speech. Don’t let your opponent absolutely dominate you in a cross, but don’t turn it into a yelling match.

If you want make sure I evaluate something from cross, tell me it in your next speech and make me put it on my flow.

Prog Args: I have a growing relationship with prog args. I believe that they are used to gatekeep the circuit and are usually just a cheap way to get a W when run against teams from small schools, but then I also think they're kinda fun. My partner and I used to bait disclosure shells because we liked to run theory in rounds, and we literally just got bored at TOC once and wrote a disclosure bad shell (the other team put one of my absolute favorite round reports on the wiki).

With that being said, I do typically enjoy a good theory debate. However, if you introduce theory, you better be ready to defend it and whatever else gets thrown your way. Also, I'm sympathetic to RVIs, but you obviously still have to win the counterinterp to win the round if you're running RVIs. Also, no one needs to spec an RVI, it's self-explanatory. Also, friv definitely does exist, and I don’t really want to hear it. I do also think spirit of the shell arguments can be valid. Basically, I'm cool with shells as long as it's not in a novice pool, no prog args in a novice pool, that's final.

Side note, if this whole section is literally complete meaningless jargon and you want to learn more about theory, please just ask me to teach you at the end of the round. I will literally sit there for a half hour and teach you everything you could possibly want to know.

K’s are interesting to me. I find K’s interesting as a form of debate intellectually, and I recognize their importance. HOWEVER, I don’t think they belong in PF (or high school debate for that matter) because I don’t think that there’s many people who really understand the importance and complexities of the literature. If you so choose to run one, you need a very strong link, and I want you to be able to explain the literature like it is the back of your hand and like you're explaining it to a toddler as I will not understand it if you don't. Please don’t read a non-topical aff K, like pretty please. Also, make sure the argument is accessible as this is PF so it should be able to be understood by the public.

No Trixs. It will not be evaluated and will upset me if I even understand it.

Evidence: Don’t make up anything. If there is no card for something you said and you get caught, you will be dropped. I think lax evidence ethics is a huge problem in debate, and this really annoys me.

Paraphrasing is bad, but I won’t automatically drop you for it. Your opponents would have to run a pretty convincing shell for that. (Adding an “and” or changing a verb from “speak” to “speaks” is not grounds for a shell; if the whole thing is just like an essay with no quotes, that may be shell worthy.)

Make sure that your cards are in an organized doc. If it takes you over two minutes to get a card when it’s called for, I’ll probably just say to move on, and I won’t be evaluating that information in my decision. (Dw, I can understand bad wifi issues if that’s the case, but like, just have your cards organized.)

While this isn’t a must do in lower level rounds, knowing your evidence can be a great way to beat your opponents. For example, if you have conflicting evidence from your opponent but your evidence is a thirty year long Harvard study while your opponents evidence in a survey if 50 people on the street, I’m obviously gonna prefer the study in my decision. But in order for me to have that preference, you have to know the evidence quality and you have to tell me that.

If you want me to call for a card or look at a card and you think it’s important to your side, please tell me.

When you are giving any speech after constructive, don’t just ever say a card name. Tell me what the card actually says. For example, if you say, “Because of Lescher 23, we can conclude…”, I can’t remember what ever single card you read said. Tell me what Lescher 23 was. Contextualize the evidence.

Speaks: I don’t really love the idea of speaks, and I kinda think they’re pointless. Because of this, unless you do something horrible, everyone in my rounds will be getting 29+. Winner will probably get somewhere in the range of 29.5-29.9 and loser will probably get somewhere from 29-29.5 depending on how close the rounds are and how good everyone is. A 30 is gonna be rare, and only for debaters who truly shock me (in a good way).

General Round Behavior: The debate room should be a comfortable and safe environment. This means that I really don’t care how you look as long as I can hear you.

Be as comfortable as you want; you can take off your heels, tie, blazer, etc. Literally, put a hoodie on if you want, I do not care. I will almost definitely be wearing a hoodie and shorts, why should you be dressed any better. I personally believe dress codes are wrong for society and are used to punish people for not conforming (tbh I'm shocked I never ran suit theory). I only care about the arguments you tell me, not how you look while making them.

Sit or stand when you speak, I do not care; do whatever makes you feel most comfortable and lets you argue best.

I think everyone is old enough to time themselves. If it becomes a serious issue or you just want me to time, let me know, but I will not be interjecting naturally.

Please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. Don’t be sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc. If you are, I will drop you and tank your speaks!!!

Please let me know if there is absolutely anything I can do to make debate a safer/more fun/more educational experience for you. I am happy to talk to you before/after rounds to support you in any way I can. Debate is scary and hard at times, but talking about it can make a difference. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at my email from the beginning.

Post round me/ask me questions. I’m happy to answer any questions you have about debate. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it with anyone who wants to.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity. Make sure you learn a thing or two and please please please HAVE FUN AND MAKE FRIENDS!!!

If you’ve made it down here, good job and good luck!!!!!

Shanjun Li Montgomery Blair 3 rounds

Ammar Mansuri Hire 6 rounds

Matthew Mapa Trinity Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 11:40 AM EDT

College student who debated for 4 years. pretty standard flow judge but I haven't really been involved in HS debate since senior year so take that as you will, lol.

- add me to the email chain, my email is mrmapa0625(at)gmail(dot)com

- for Blue Key: not super familiar with the topic lit so don't assume I know more than I do

- have your evidence ready to go, if it’s taking a really long time to find one card then I’m gonna get annoyed

- preflow before rounds if possible

- lmk if there's anything I can do to best accommodate y'all

How to win my ballot:

- don’t be a jerk or I’ll tank your speaks and give you the L

- weigh (and also if both you and your opponents weigh, weigh the weighing) so I don't have to do it

- I really hate when people are just reading cards, I need warranting as to why the evidence matters in the context of the round, why it's responsive to their case/rebuttal responses, etc.

- collapse, less is more in PF, and going for an argument or two and explaining how it interacts with whatever your opponents are going for is far more effective than just trying to go for everything

- frontlining rebuttal responses needs to happen in second rebuttal and first summary, I’ll still flow it if it happens later, but your opponent won’t have to do much for me to consider it refuted

- write my ballot for me in final focus because I look there first, anything in final focus should be in summary

- extend arguments, not just card names or I probably won’t catch it

Other Notes

- don’t spread, speed is fine

- I won’t flow new arguments in final focus

- Theory: never hit it when I competed, so I don't have the best idea how to valuate it

- Ks: not super familiar with them but I have an idea of how to evaluate it, just make sure you actually collapse on it

- postrounding: questions are fine, but you’re not gonna convince me to change my decision

- miscut evidence: I’m willing to drop based on miscut evidence so don’t do it

- I don’t flow cross

- y'all can keep track of your own prep

- feel free to ask me questions before the round about anything in my paradigm

Michelle McGovern Dreyfoos School of the Arts 6 rounds

Quinn McKenzie Trinity Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 2:40 AM CDT

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Lindsey McNamara American Heritage Palm Beach HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 10:54 AM EDT

Updated January 2024

Contact info: lindseydebate@gmail.com

Background: I debated in LD for 4 years at William T. Dwyer High School and graduated in 2017. I was a lone wolf at most tournaments and got 1 bid to TOC my senior year. I also competed in several college policy tournaments at University of Florida. Jack Ave was my coach in highschool and Charles Karcher was my partner in college policy if that helps fill in any gaps of my paradigm (aside from LARP).

General:

I will vote on almost any argument so long as it is clearly explained why and how I should do so; however, I reserve the right to vote you down if you make blatantly offensive arguments or say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as well as make blatant evidence violations. Do not miscut or misattribute evidence.

Kritiks are great and philosophy in general is great.

Be nice to novices pls and just nice in general. If you feel like you have to exclude your opponent on purpose by spreading or drowning them things they clearly don't understand, for example theory, topicality, etc. your speaks will suffer and you might get voted down. If you do not think you can still win the debate by being inclusive to a novice or someone clearly worse than you, then strike me. Debate should be educational and should not leave a debater suffering in round because of the other debater having a ruthless desire to win.

Give trigger warnings for potentially triggering arguments.

Weighing and impacting is very important- I want to hear how I should vote and why. Write my ballot for me. If there is no weighing, I will be sad.

Prep ends when email is sent or flash leaves the computer. If you are typing, it is prep.

CX is binding.

Flex prep is fine.

I don't want to hear a lengthy spew of cards. You can read cards as refutation, but please add analysis as to why I should care.

Signposting is very important, especially for PF. Please be extra clear.

*LD*

Defaults if not told otherwise:

K/epistemology before theory

Comparative worlds

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading and I will yell clear if I cannot understand. It has been a few years since I have judged so maybe start slower with your speed. Please put me on the email chain though- see above for my email.

Kritiks:

This is my favorite form of debate. I am not as well read on high theory, but I am open to listen to anything. When reading these types of arguments, assume I know nothing. So long as debaters clearly explain what their argument means and does, then I will vote on it. I am also open to non T K affs.

Topicality/Theory:

Friv theory makes me sad.

Topicality is cool if run well.

I will vote on it if you win it, but it may be harder to win in front of me. I am not that good at flowing spikes so keep that in mind when deciding how many you want to read.

LARP:

Although I did policy debate, when I judge LD I don't want to feel like I'm judging policy. Not a fan, but you do you; however, if the arguments win, then they win.

Disclosure:

I think disclosure CAN be a good norm for debate but is NOT practiced well- please keep that in mind. Disclosure theory can be run in front of me, but if you are running it on someone who doesn’t know what disclosure is- that will be bad for you and it will make me sad. If you are running it against a small school/lone wolf debater, I will probably have more leniencies for them. If it is being used as a frivolous tactic, I will be sad.

*PF*

My LD background frames my view of debate; however, I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging. Signposting and weighing is incredibly important. I like rounds to be as clear and fleshed out as possible. Write my ballot for me. LD norms have bled over into PF so if those types of arguments are going to be read, they need to be read well with uniqueness/link/impact. Please don't assume because I did LD that you will have a better chance at winning just for reading these types of arguments. You can read whatever you want in front of me, so long as it is read, impacted and weighed well.

Overall, have fun, learn something, and be a good human. Don’t change your style to please a judge, just debate well. Good luck!!<3

Glian Melendez Buchholz High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 4:06 AM EDT

Glian Miguel T. Melendez

Teacher and assistant coach of F.W. Buchholz High School's Speech and Debate Team

Event Types: Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Individual Events (e.g., Original Oratory, Declamation, etc.)

I have only judged for 1 year (as of the time this is written), but I have attended a handful of NFCFL tournaments, two FBK tournaments (including this one), and the NFCFL Grand Finals, judging the events listed above.

I award speaker points to debaters based on verbal skills (e.g., speaking dyanamics, language use, rate of speaking, tone, etc.), references (e.g., citing all parts of a source such as the name, organization, and date of the information), sound logic and reasoning, and overall decorum. Those who exhibit a more exemplary performance will be awarded with more points than others.

Since I primarily judge debate, I do find myself basing harder-to-make decisions on whoever made a more "clear" argument. A clear argument includes the following characteristics: effective causal relationships, measurable and foreseeable impacts, accurate data, and thoroughly cited references. Also, pairing a clear argument with exceptional speaking skills will always make my job easier.

When it comes to the issue of valuing debate skills over truthful arguments, keep in mind that listeners, may they be judges, spectators, laypersons, etc., have varying levels of understanding towards the topics discussed. Additionally, those listeners all come with their own set of biases that can never be completely removed during any debate. So, it is increasingly important to provide as much context and background information for your judges and audience members to help them understand your positions.

But, even though I believe that truthful arguments should hold just as much value as debate skills, I also believe that speaking/debating skills become even more important when addressing judges and audience members who are unknowingly or willfully ignorant about certain issues; debate students would have to "perform" for the judge's approval instead of solely relying on hard facts.

Other things about me:

I value students who are able to regain control of their moment to speak during crossfires. But, I will adjust speaker points accordingly if I see students disrespecting other students' times to speak.
Specifically for Congressional Debate, I highly prefer that later speakers provide novel arguments, or at least a new perspective to a previously-established argument.
If you spread, you risk receiving a lower speaker point total than your opponents because bulldozing us with information is not nearly as effective as establishing a comprehensive and concise argument.
I find public speaking skills to be important in all event types. Being an engaging speaker-for example, having an easy-to-understand speaking rate, a dynamic tone, clear speaking volume, and an enthusiastic approach to the subject at hand-will only help you more than simply being informative.

Bruce Missell Millburn High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 11:25 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years. I do a bit of collegiate policy now.

tech > truth unless you’re physically violent or bigoted

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

All ev is silly but i’m a big ethan roytman guy so go for it

Yang Gang

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or bigoted pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on ICC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need NEED to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I did a bit of K debate last year in collegiate policy, did a bit of K debate while still on the HSPF circuit, and coach K teams, so I'm cool with it. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to.

I do like K's that pertain to the debate space (eg some versions of fem, orientalism, afropess, etc) as I'm persuaded by the whole "if debate can only operate through bigotry it probably shouldn't exist" but approach debate bad or debate broken arguments however you feel so inclined.

Generally I think that T-USFG is smarter than a lot of framework arguments in PF mainly because no plans/cp means less room for teams to meet in a way that is reasonable but I've voted on both so go for whatever you think fits better for the round.

My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is usually not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it). Note that this still means that the team going for the RVI needs to warrant why losing the shell is a reason to lose the round.

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing/Decision Criterion in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Efficient LbyL
Having fun with it
Good argument explanation
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
A super clean win

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhat honest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then be VERY certain about the violation.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed?Sort of but I have audio processing issues so under three conditions.

a) Don't take it above about 275wpm (the slower the better)

b) You’re clear

c) You send me docs including analytics

d) probably not a smart idea to go fast and read a k

I’ve been doing this for years, have spread many rounds myself, and do policy now but that doesn’t mean I’ll always be perfect, especially considering my API. So while not a huge risk, the faster and less clear you are the more you risk me missing something.

Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new weighing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs?

nah probably not

Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Nathan Padron Hire 6 rounds

Hassan Palanpurwala Germantown Friends School 3 rounds

Zia Patel Hire 6 rounds

Justin Perez Hire 6 rounds

Alex Pham Dreyfoos School of the Arts 6 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 1:09 PM CDT

-- 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), Daniel Guo (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've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

Jordan Press NSU University School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 2:24 PM EDT

My name is Jordan Press. I debated for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, graduating in 2016. I was very active as a debater/judge/coach from 2012-2019. I now work at NSU University School as an educator and assistant coach.

jordan.press1998@gmail.com for email chains – also feel free to email questions.

POST EMORY 2025:I am sorry, but I no longer want to sit through any more bad K/frivolous theory/SPARK debates etc. Reading arguments to avoid doing real research and clash is antithetical to the purpose of Public Forum Debate. I can evaluate them, but I very much dislike the direction that PF is going. Read theory to check back real abuse. Other than that PLEASE read substance - my brain cannot tolerate going entire tournaments without hearing a substance round any longer.

The purpose of an email chain is to speed up evidence exchange, not to have the judge read off your doc during your speeches while you go incomprehensibly fast. I can flow most speeds but when PFers go fast they usually aren't clear, andif you aren't clear I can't flow. I don't want to flow off your doc. Prioritize being efficient over being quick. Also if you're going really fast I'm probably not flowing author names, so keep that in mind for extensions. The only time I look at evidence is if 1) there's an unresolved evidence dispute, 2) I feel like I'm forced to do so in order to make my decision (which means the debate was super messy/unclear), or 3) I'm curious

Back half strategy: I strongly prefer rounds where you make it clear to me what voting for you does. What does the Aff/Neg world look like and why is your world better? I want a clear, concise, cohesive, and crystalized narrative. Additionally, extensions require context and warranting that evolves around the events occurring in the round. The best rounds are the ones where debaters shape their extensions and warrants around the clash happening in the round instead of reading off a pre-written extension file. If you just tell me to “extend Smith” with no context, I probably won’t extend it on my flow. If you are going to read blippy card extensions in Summary/FF I am not the judge for you. Moreover, Depth > Breadth. I am much more likely to vote for a team extending 1 cleanly explained, weighed and fleshed out argument than a team extending 3-4 arguments that they are winning but are not explained in-depth in the back half of the round.

You should weigh early and often – it helps develop your narrative and helps me know what issues to look to first when filling out my ballot.

On Speaker Points – teams who do this stuff ^^ well will get higher speaks.

Defense isn't sticky. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

I default to evaluating if I think the Aff or Neg world is better if I am not given judge instructions in the back-half.

My threshold for accepting responses to unwarranted arguments is really low.

I am generally tech over truth (this is a false dichotomy but w/e), but there is a threshold for offensive arguments. I will vote off ridiculous (in real world context) arguments if they are properly warranted, and easily not vote off things that are universal truths if they are not properly warranted. Warranting is key, which means it's generally much easier to have good explanations for real, truthful arguments anyways.

Progressive Arguments: By this point I'd say I'm decently comfortable evaluating theory and topical Ks. If your K is unusual or more dense (high theory/phil etc), you will need to overexplain and go slower, especially in the back half. I'm fine if you want to read a non-topical K but you'll need to overexplain even more. Ks and Theory weren't a thing when i was in HS so my beliefs are shifting as I learn and I have no preconceived notions on the args. I have literally 0 opinions on RVIs, IVIs, Ks, ROB, and Theory. You can shape my beliefs with the arguments you make in round, but I also would not expect a perfect evaluation of them.

On Disclosure specifically, I am pretty tab. I think there are both good and bad reasons for disclosure. However, if you email/upload to the wiki a giant block of text with no tags, highlighting or minimized text, my default interpretation is that you are not properly disclosed. At that point you are just being coy; either disclose or don't.

Tricks are a nonstarter.

TLDR;read what you want - if I don't understand it within the round, I won't vote on it.

In novice/middle school/JV rounds, I presume for the side I have to do the least work to find a voter for.

In Varsity/Nat Circuit rounds I presume Neg.

I don't care where you sit; if you stand while speaking, where you do crossfire, what you wear, etc. Do whatever makes you comfortable as long as I can hear you/your opponents.

Feel free to post-round me or ask questions – I want to help you learn and grow- just don’t be rude or belittling towards me and especially not towards your opponents. I am an adult; I can just leave if the conversation becomes unproductive. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but even more importantly it is an educational one. Be good humans, don’t let your drive to win rounds cloud your judgement.

Most importantly have fun and good luck! If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins or email me.

Amanda Pritchard The Altamont School 3 rounds

Ria Rajpal West Broward High School 3 rounds

Raghav Rangaraj Olympia HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 24, 2024 at 6:07 PM EDT

conflicts- olympia hs, dphs

I am a former 4 year debater who specialized in Public Forum, although I am comfortable judging in LD and BQ.

If u wanna start an email chain - raghavrangaraj7@gmail.com

read what u want do what u want debate what u want wear what u want

if u try to kiss my @$$ before round i will note it and subconsciously be against u the entire time- fine line between casual conversation and sucking up to me to get an up on ur opps

Overview (Not in any particular order)

1) Tech > Truth; Debate is a game

2) All arguments must have a claim and a warrant- do not just provide a random blip card and think I will buy it.

3) Signpost, signpost

4) Don't spam evidence without giving me substantial commentary on why it matters- I would prefer if you simplified it down to the most important cards and provide some impact weighing.

5) I appreciate clever use of humor whenever applicable in round.

6) Filler words such as "like" and "literally" are irksome, but if your a novice I understand.

7) Keep your own prep time.

8) Don't forget to take prep when you're calling for cards

9) I do sometimes call for cards that are heavily contested in a round after round which impacts my decision.

10) Please EXTEND arguments in S and FF- I am 10x more likely to vote off of clean warranted extensions then arguments mentioned in 1 or the other, but not both.

Framework

PF usually doesn't go hard on framework, but any standard aff util or consequentialism is fine, as well as most lives.

bonus speaks for bostrom

if u have any other fw im fine just warrant it and make sure ur args have some relevance into it.

Constructive

1] I don't really care what kind of arguments you go for as long as they are properly warranted and fleshed out.

2] Warrants are key.

3] Nuc war is fine, but the link has to be solid- and provide multiple internal links

4] Provide some quantifiable impacts- makes it easier to buy weighing off of magnitude and scope.

5] Pro Hindu/India args= auto 30 speaks

6] Speaking fast is fine, just time yourself.

Rebuttal

1] If you're speaking second give me an order (ie, case then rebuttal, or frontlining then case)

2] SIGNPOST

3] don't say " they don't have evidence so vote for us"- tell me why them not having evidence matters in terms of the argument and actually refute the argument head on.

4] turns are good

5] Pls go down the flow- dont flip flop back and forth its hella annoying to keep track of and ill prob dock speaks for it

Summary

1] signposting is extremely crucial, lots of info in short amount of time so be organized

2] be clear for what ur going for and what u still have D on

3] dont read ev pls im begging u - summary is not to spew ev, but rather to evaluate round based on it

4] if u dont weigh and give clear mechanisms i will do it on my own accord- that doesnt mean just say "we win on magnitude" and give some stupid reason why u win, give me logical reasons on how u outweigh on given mechanism.

5] theres prob other stuff i cant think of rn but just be good, dont make my job more complicated and be as clear and organized as you can- no weird stuff.

Final Focus

1] if u dont extend from sum or say something that isnt in sum, i will not factor it into my rfd it whatsoever, goodbye and goodnight.

2] give me clear voters- be profound and passionate as to where i am checking off my ballot for you

3] if u try to turn too late or just be abusive in anyway i wont even care to factor it in and will prob dock hella speaks

Other stuff that may be (ir)relevant

1] i wont disclose unless i feel like it, will give general feedback at end of round

2] shake hands or convey any variation of good sportsmanship after round

3] if u yell in cx ur opp better be outrageously stupid

4] keep prep when calling for ev, if u bring and bring it up in subsequent speech if it is relevant

5] pls be somewhat passionate abt what ur talking abt- i know debate is kind of annoying but ur here for a reason so put some pep in ur voice- im also less likely to lock in to what your saying if u sound monotonous

6] i may call for ev at end of round if it is highly contestant

7] i love clash- meaning of arguments, not the game

8] cheekiness and sarcasm is appreciated, arrogance is not.

9] if ur comp dies i have sympathy cuz it happened to me multiple times before in round, but make sure to keep it charged i dont wanna drag out round for more time than it should be

10] im a chill guy just dont be annoying or give me any reason to have it in for u during the round- just do ur job

Daniel Rivero Christopher Columbus High School 3 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PDT

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.

Wesley Saylor Battle Ground Academy 3 rounds

Kelly Schwab Pembroke Pines Charter High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones. Overview below:

Speech score based on: intro purpose, argument basis & hard evidence warranted, impacts clear...answers in questioning can impact your speech score. - not a fan of "I'm sure you can tell me" or responding in anger. Remember you are trying to prove your knowledge on topic and convince others to vote with you.

Joey Short Pembroke Pines Charter High School 2 rounds

Gandhi Subramanian Pittsburgh Central Catholic 6 rounds

Jasper Tessel Hire 6 rounds

Norman Tillero Sequoyah High School 6 rounds

Vera Tolari New Horizons D.N. 2 rounds

Matthew Tu Olympia HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 6:05 PM EDT

What is said in round is what I assume to be truth (unless its blatantly wrong, ex: Saying the sky is red)

Speed: no spreading, no need to speed up your delivery to explain your offense and defense.

What determines a winner, within order of importance:

1. Providing an argument that has an impact, one that is likely to occur in the real world (probable), that takes priority over all other arguments. I’d rather vote for an impact that may be small in effect but highly probable than vice versa.

2. Extensively weighing your impacts, very important in helping me distinguish between which arguments I should consider in the round and their magnitude. Tell me why its important for me to know and understand.

3. Effectively backing up your offense and defense with extensive evidence and warrants, giving me clear data and reasoning for me to support you. A good offense is one that is both highly probable and highly effective. A good defense is one that disproves the offense via prerequisite, underlying effects, and weighing.

4. Signposting your rebuttals and summaries to organize the flow of thought, dividing up your time effectively into a). Addressing the opponents argument b). Stating why it’s wrong c). Explaining why it is wrong.

5. Providing clear delivery and clarity throughout the entire round

6. Crossfire, I may consider this depending on the communication dynamic between the two debaters

7. K’s, t-shell, basically progressive arguments

What I don’t want to see, within order of most distasteful:

1. Backing up arguments with claims that have no evidence or warrants. I hate to see it when debaters try to provide a counterarguments that has no reasoning or cards to prove why I should consider it.

2. Putting your emotions and letting it dictate the debate, I want to see you use your heads, not your hearts. Logic and reasoning are at center of what a debate is about.

3. Obvious nervousness, no fidgeting of the fingers or movement of body. It takes away from your confidence.

Andrew Underhill Wildwood High School 2 rounds

Sienna Vaughn Northridge 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 3:54 AM PDT

hi! i'm currently a college freshman and coach for the National Debate Club. https://www.nationaldebate.club/ i started pf in 7th grade and went to over 40 national circuit tournaments (qualified to gold toc and nats 4 times) my email is sienna@cdadebate.com

overall, I feel comfortable with most of everything in pf, but if you have one takeaway from my paradigm, it should be the following quote from my partner daniel zhao... "If you don't agree with anything in my paradigm its fine because if you win your justification for why your arguments are true in round I will pick you up" (tech>>>truth)

progressive args - I'm comfortable with judging theory. i read disclosure theory as a debater all the time, so as long as you're being clear, I should be good. with all this being said, i think disclosure and paraphrasing rounds are boring, and i'd rather not judge them. be more creative than that! for Kritiks, I've lost to identity K's 5/6 times i've hit them which should show you how much i understand the intricacies of them. i will evaluate your args as best as possible, and i likely know the args you are making, but just be slow and clear. if you explain things like why your weighing matters or why the thing you're going for wins you the round, i'll be good, but i need you to hold my hand through it. tricks eek idek if that's how you spell them. i'll do my best fs

evidence - i do believe having good evidence is really important, so please don't just send your opponents a link or a non-cut card. with that being said, i never liked judges who cared so much about every little piece of evidence that they ignored everything else in the round. I'm not looking at your evidence unless it heavily influences my decision and/or you ask me to, but i might drop your speaks a little if we have to wait for you to cut a card because it wasn't cut before. in my opinion, good ev is important, but how both sides debate/use the ev is more important!

speed - send a doc if you're going fast. if you don't know if you're going fast, send a doc. i consider 250 wpm pretty fast, so send docs for anything above that. clarity is your best friend.

warrants - the MOST important thing in debate. explain explain explain. always explain. break the clash with warrants. have warrants for your responses, your internal links, your impacts, all of it! i care a lot about warrants. birds are fake. sure. why!

response stuff - defense is sticky. i need everything else extended in summary and final focus. a dropped turn is conceded offense. no new responses unless they are weighing or implicated from something else on the flow. a turn is not a turn unless it has an impact. even if that impact is just there impact, you have to say that.

weighing - SUPER important. weighing is what makes good debaters great. i love creative weighing. BUT...be clear with it. number your weighing if you're going to do a lot of it. if you want me to vote properly, do all the weighing for each argument under that argument not everywhere in every single place like "oh yeah this o/w too"

signpost please! off time roadmaps don't need to be 10 years long. just tell me where to start or the general direction

I'm most likely timing your speeches just because it helps me flow. i'll probably stop flowing when you finish your last idea that was still started in time. call out your opponents tho if they are going over!

attitudes - be funny. be lighthearted. be nice. don't be condescending. don't speak over your opponents. i want to LIKE you as a debater. make me like you.

if i'm on an elim panel with lay judges, please adapt to them, not me! i can watch any round and love a good lay round. fast debate will exclude the lay. slow debate will still include me.

i think the best debaters can go into the fastest round with TONS of arguments on the flow and give the slowest speeches. THAT is good debate. efficiency. strategic decisions. winning 10 pieces of offense is cool, but if you were unclear, you are jeopardizing the round because you might not have done enough work on a single one for me to feel comfy voting for you.

have fun!

Rati Venkatesan Hire 6 rounds

Chenguang Wang Richard Montgomery High School 6 rounds

Katelynn Warmbold The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:26 PM EDT

I am a coach at The Potomac School. Experience in coaching and competing in speech and debate at the High School and College levels. Many years of judging HS and MS. All together, about 14 years.

Basic round guidelines regardless of event:

-General courtesy towards other debaters/speakers. Good sportsmanship before, during, and after rounds.

-Be careful about making large scale claims about minority/marginalized groups, arguments need to be more general (i.e. people in x situation generally do y. NOT this group does y in x situation.). In my mind this is the easiest way to create a friendly and educational environment that doesn't exclude people or make them uncomfortable.

Congress:

Delivery - At a minimum I must be able to hear and understand the words you are saying. I am not a fan of visual aids, I find they usually waste time and distract from the speech's purpose.

Evidence usage - Evidence should inform and bolster your argument. Looking for a good balance of evidence variety and volume.

Analysis - I need to know the context of the evidence that is being provided and see how it connects to your argument. I will not connect the dots myself.

Decorum - Maintain good sportsmanship and a professional atmosphere.

Voting - If there is an outstanding decorum issue, this will be my primary voting point and I will note it in your ballot. Other than that, I will always lean towards analysis.

Debate Rounds:

-Heavier on content than delivery, but delivery must be understandable, (i.e. slow enough to understand, If you do spread, I'll do my best to flow and follow the speech but if it's too fast or mumbled, the arguments get dropped) have a sense of clarity, and some composure. Make sure you flow the round - it wasn't on the shared doc is not an excuse in my book. If I can hand flow and catch it, I expect you to.

-Round clash is important - including directly answering questions from opponents.

-Clarity and signposting through your flow is much appreciated.

-Warranting and impacting makes up a large part of my ballot. Win your world (framework), win their world (framework).

- I'm fine with theory/Ks/etc BUT it needs to make sense for that round and you have to debate it well.

Speech:

-Looking to see the full range of your speaking capabilities (volume, emotion, etc.).

-Please make sure I can hear you in rounds, if I cannot hear you, I cannot rank you properly.

-Do NOT use your phones during rounds. Please show respect to your fellow speakers. I will not hesitate to drop your ranks/speaks.

Cat Williams Brentwood High School 4 rounds

Reagan Yount Brentwood High School 5 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Gainesville, FL/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges