I am a second year political science & history student at the University of Florida Honors Program. I have previously competed as a debater in the World Schools Debate competition. I am looking for substantive arguments that are supported by facts and evidence, as well as the citations for that evidence, for non-impromptu motions. I am also looking for confident speaking skills and understanding of the argument(s) and the supporting facts.

Email chain please: gdetuya@columbushs.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE. YOU RISK JUDGE INTERVENTION WHEN EVIDENCE ETHICS IS QUESTIONABLE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is... okay I guess. I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason. With that said I will still vote on T args like disco, but be clear on your interps hand harms.

LD: Though I used to judge policy years ago - in the intervening years y'all have gotten better at speed while also running tons of tech. Hard for me to keep up with both. My level of experience says I should be able to handle tech rounds, and I wont drop on some principal that all tech is bad ~(unless you're running tricks ), but be aware that you're running the risk that I dont catch something.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. I don’t like K debate. Most Ks stitch together noncontextual links, but if it isnt, I will vote on it if done well. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. Links should be lock tight. The round will be messy because of if not, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments >>> specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence.

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, keep it to 15 sec or less, dont badger your opponents with multiple back to back attempts at asking.

5. Framework is something that should basically be agreed on by the end of the second speeches. In instances where it isnt (and for most cases, it really shouldnt be - lets have reasonable grounds for debate here) disagreements should then be handled as permutations (their highest ground, our highest ground) so I at least have responses on each side if framework is a push or if I am eft to decide who presented the most common sense definitions/burdens/etc. Win on substance. Please.

Hi all!

I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in middle and high school on the national circuit.

For world schools,
Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentations.
Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions
Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's.

Generally, lay it all out for me. Tell me where to vote and why.

Bonus points if you make funny but tasteful jokes or pop culture references during speeches.

make an email chain:ikatz116@gmail.com

#deBAYbies

debated policy and LD in HS for two years at Cypress Bay, first year judge; studying at UF

Overall:

Most of all be respectful.. don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, or insult your opponent personally beyond their debating. I'm mostly cool with judging anything, but I'm not the best for certain args, although I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted well enough and won on the flow. Cool w/spreading, signpost clearly, not just between flows but also on different part of the flow, i.e. on the K, on the perm, on the links, etc. I'll say "clear" twice or three times max. Don't spread analytics, I'll prolly miss them if not miss the warranting. Also, debate really is not that serious. You leave the room and no one knows what you're talking about. If there's something you should take away from it, it's a passion to get locally involved and make a change.. live up to the prescriptions you make. Also, don't call me judge, excessively.. preferable you don't address me at all. I won't dock speaks for not reading/adhering to my paradigm but my paradigm is the guide to gaining them.

Pref Rankings:

1--K

2--LARP/Theory

3--Trad

4--trix/phil

Quick Pref Charts:

Policy ----------------------------X----------------- K

Tech -----------------X-------------------------------Truth

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Condo ---X------------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

A2 --------------------------------------------X AT

A2 X-------------------------------------------- @

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants -------X------------------------------------- Extending authors

(what I like to judge) Alt ------X-------------------------------------------------- "Reject the Aff"

(what is probably better tactically) Alt ------------------------------------------X-------------- "Reject the Aff"

Personality ------X--------------------------------------- Doc-bot #00015

One off, case X--------------------------------------------- One million billion off case positions, case

Fairness is an impact ---X----------------------------- Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff -----------------------------X- Presumption neg

Presumption -------X------------------------------- Never votes on presumption

Better ev ----X------------------------------------- More ev

Disclose ------X---------------------------------- "it's new"

New affs bad ------------------------X---------------- New affs good

Line by line-----------X--------------------------implied warrants/answer

Getting the shakes before a drop --------------------------------------------X The days passed, the heat grew

Argentine punk rock undercommons ------X------------------------------------- Generic K-aff

Debate is a game ----------------X--------------------------- Debate is actively harmful

Theory:

Clear interps, vios, standards.. don't spread through the standards I'll miss a few. You're good to pull out reject X one-liners from constructives as long as the extension clarifies the violation and the standards. I lean towards gut check bad theory.. you have to prove either that the harms in round were significant and/or that its a bad practice for debate at large. Give me a narrative for in round harms, give me a description of the telos of debate under their practices. A lil nitpick here but don't js name drop severance or reps without explaining the impact in the extension.. Why is severance bad? Whenever you're answering, don't just extend your standards, engage with theirs, at least defensively, don't just extend a block and expect me to discard the flow.

Condo is chill but I can be convinced otherwise, love a good condo debate, but if it gets into arbitrary stuff like 2 vs 3 conditional advocacies it's a wash on my flow. Dispositional advocacies can be kicked unless the aff puts offense on that flow.

I hate heavy underviews and spikes.. my bar for answering them is below the ground, but there should be some answer.. whether you group, go line by line, or read a new shell.

I generally think theory precedes the K unless I get an explanation for why the argument the kritik makes precedes their access to the shell or turns the shell.

Kritiks:

I debated a weird range of Ks in my career, but I'm most familiar with Anthro, Cap & Racial Cap, Pess, a lil Baudrillard, Set Col, Psychoanalysis etc. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of lit, especially pomo stuff, but I'd love to check it out and am open to judging it... make sure there's substantial warranting. I prefer a shorter overview and a lot of warranting in the line by line.. make me understand the kritik through the answers. I think embedded defense in the overview is also fine but I prefer lbl, even better if you could do both.

Stay away from buzzwords.. give me a thorough explanation in the line by line of your scholarship.. the goal shouldn't be to confuse or to be ahead, instead lean towards engaging debate about epistemic practices. If the goal of the K is education and shifting conversation, it should be understandable.

Perms on the kritik should be well warranted, I won't vote on an extension of a perm if there isn't an explanation of its viability or how voting for the perm doesn't trigger their offense. Also, perms are a test of competition, and not offense for the aff. I prefer offensive answers to the perm, put several DAs on the perms, don't just say they sever their reps if you have the time. Also, perm double bind is beautiful and underutilized; however, there should be an explanation of the perm beyond the warranting for the double bind if you're going for it; i.e, perm double bind - [x] - do the aff then the alt, or do the aff and the alt, etc.

Link debate goes hand in hand with the perm, if they win the no link then the perm is warranted and viable. If you link you lose only if they win the impact debate, and warrant/frame the K as a terminal link DA. Links should be specific, but this doesn't mean they can't be to institutions.. this does mean that you should pull out moments in cross, and in the aff, that link to the K. I want a thorough explanation about how their specific epistemic practices trigger your impacts, the bar for winning a no link on a generic link with a generic extension is low, but I lean very heavily towards a proper, specific, warranted link.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Epistemically, materially, for this round, and for debates on the topic at large.

On framing, I think the aff should have to defend their epistemic practices, but simultaneously that they get to weigh the impacts of the aff. The K is an indict on your scholarship, but a response includes challenging the K's epistemic practices, and extending/weighing your impacts through the round. Usually, whoever you impact author is didn't write an article on the end of the world for giggles, there's genuine warranting and reasoning that you can extend beyond the scholarship indict.

"Fiat is illusory" is a fact, not a claim. Explain why that should, or shouldn't matter.

K solves your impacts is not the same as a floating PIK. The PIK is the alt includes your plan. K solves your impacts is separate, and generally fair. Answer their alt. lmao.

Alt's should be THOROUGHLY explained. You can drop it and go for the K as a link DA, and that's how I evaluate any K with a "reject the aff" alt, but if you keep the alt, you should answer their offense in depth with a mix of evidence and explanation of the alt's telos. Alt shouldn't be a litany of buzzwords like "embrace the mestizo mentality" (NINA!), there should be an explanation about what that materially represents and why the ballot is key. Don't be shy in cross, aff or neg, question what you don't understand, and answer to the best of your capacity, don't be coy unless it's funny and appropriate.

K-Aff:

Most of the stuff from the K block applies. Give me a thorough explanation of your solvency mechanism, your links, and your impacts/theory of power. You should do this, preferably, in a shorter overview and more in well warranted lbl answers on the case flow. Bar for answering ballot isn't key, education is irrelevant, and already published is low, but there needs to be an answer. Ballot PIKs and Academy Ks on the K-aff are super strong, but there needs to be an impact and a distinction between an aff and neg ballot. I most likely won't vote on a one liner on case as an answer to the entire aff.

Death could be good. lmk.

The K-aff should very clearly challenge the educational practices of the resolution. You're rejecting a juridical reading of the resolution because it propagates a set of impacts and a system of oppression/exploitation in the research practices and discussions it generates. Instead, you're proposing a shift of the stasis point of the resolution, a shift in the reading of the resolution that allows the K-aff mechanism to be topical, so that the resolution's knowledge production avoids the violence you outlined. Use your 1ac links to the rez as answers to their interp on fw.

If you're K-aff is more complex, give me a meaty overview, or preferably, very meaty replies on the lbl. I won't vote on something that I can't explain back to you. Clearly grouping and organizing the debate helps with this greatly and will boost your speaks.

On fw, clearly explain why a juridical reading of the resolution is necessary and the only stable stasis point for knowledge production. Explain ways that the resolution can still produce the knowledge they advocate for without shifting research in a way you can't prepare for. Go for in round harms and for debate practices at large. TVA should be a full plan text, and should be warranted.. please don't say the TVA is "The USFG ought to burn itself down." Also, Interpretation should be clear, violation should be specific and linked to the interpretation, and the standards should be clearly linked to both.

LARP

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Multi-plank counterplans, PICs, qpq is all chill but I can be convinced otherwise. perms are a test of competition. should explain why severance is bad don't just name drop. Wakanda CP and things of that nature are cool but need to be well warranted, and need to be validated as a model of debate. Sentence theory in the 1ar is fine but if your going for it needs to be expanded on and most of the warranting should've been in the sentence.

DAs should have a clear link chain. Debate should collapse mainly to weighing impacts, ends up being a game of the risk of the aff and the risk of the DA, and you should explain it to me that way. Signpost when you're on the UQ, the link debate, and the impact debate, overview should be short and warranting should show up in the lbl. Pull out specific warrants in your own and the other teams cards and explain how they interact, to push me one way or the other on the risk debate.

Phil/Tricks:

don't know much about it. Open to anything, as long as its not blatantly abusive. Preferably phil is explained well, I won't vote on it if I don't understand it. Trix should be explained in cross when asked, or else your ethos tanks and its hard to buy after.

Cross:

If you're confused, ask. Good debates mean you're on the same page. Cross is binding and can be used as offense, to an extent. Ask leading questions, use evidence in your questions, pull out quotes from their cards, scrutinize their case and garner offense from their answers, or at least tank their ethos. As the person answering, answer clearly, and answer fully. You can be funny but don't be disrespectful, and answer their questions, or you're tanking your own ethos.

Bonus:

sage wins the TOC

For world schools:

Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentation. Feel free to get into it.

Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions.

Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's..

Good luck and have the best time!

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, be nice, make logical arguments, and have fun!

My name is Carter and I have been doing debate for 4 years now and judging for two of them. I tend to prioritize speech over information just due to information being available to everyone and if the students had more time they could possibly have found that critical piece of it. While compared to speech, where you can actually practice and get better or worse at it, which I find more impressive due to the work ethic.

Hi!! I am excited to watch and judge your rounds!

I did public forum and world schools debate throughout high school, and now I am an assistant director for the Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament.Make sure to signpost, be responsive, collapse, and weigh. For LD, I am more of a lay judge.

For world schools,

Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentations.

Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions

Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's.

Good luck!

WS

I have been a coach for over 20 years, but like most people (especially on the East Coast) I am relatively new to this event.

I will do my best follow the NDSA norms and judge with 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy. I believe that the debaters should provide their own warrants based on statistics and examples. Do not spit evidence. I value debaters that can think on their feet and clearly explain their arguments.

Not a fan of a team standing constantly for POIs, but a couple of well thought out and timed POIs are appreciated. Also unless otherwise noted or argued in the framework, I will assume the motion is global.

PF

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

Hi everyone! I am a second year student here at UF. I am a Director of Round Robin for the Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament. I competed in Public Forum on the National Circuit in High School. I am excited to judge you all and I look forward to watching a respectful round!

For world schools,
Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentations.
Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions
Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's.

My name is Casey Siner, and I am one of the Senior Director for Round Robin here for the Florida Blue Key Tournament. I am also a fourth-year Materials Science and Engineering major at the University of Florida. As a judge, I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions. Also for every competitor, I expect to see strong public speaking skills, confidence, and determination.

World Schools:

Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentations.

Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions

Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's.

I have been involved in Speech and Debate at Winter Park High School for the last 8 years, either as a judge, assistant coach or head coach.

As a debater, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and favor a traditional Value-Centered debate, with an emphasis on weighing the VC and the V, rather than offering K's and plans. I don't mind a quick pace, but if I can't follow you as you speak, I cannot evaluate your argument which will likely impact my decision.

For PF, I would say the same principles of delivery apply.

I really love WSD, especially since it favors presenting logical arguments at a reasonable rate of speech. I will follow the NSDA guidelines for scoring, so remember not to spread and to make sure your cover the burdens and show the clash for the round, rather than focusing on throwing out the most evidence as quickly as you can.