Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2024 — Long Beach, CA/US
TOC Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAs an attorney, I will inevitably think about your argument as a judge or jury may hear it. In that vein, I do not like debate spreading. It does not comport to the real world. Nobody talks that fast; certainly nobody persuades anybody to their side of an argument talking that fast. If you must do so because you have only prepared a spreading format at a tournament, please send me the text or at least an outline of your speech ahead of time (jp@stuartalbanlaw.com). I prefer natural language flow to excessive use of technical words/debate lingo. More of the traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas.
I do not take offense at any line of argument so long as you argue it respectfully. I strive to start from a neutral position even if I already have a strong personal position on any particular topic.
I look closely for logical reasoning and chains; and answering to each of your opponent’s contentions and sub-points, even if some are addressed quickly. An exception is that I understand focusing on just the most important arguments, as you judge those to be, if your opponent chooses to spread with too many arguments to address given the time you have.
Although I track time, I expect you to track your own time and to signal to me if your opponent runs over. I also expect you to have backup evidence for each of your factual statements. However, if your opponent does not challenge an un-cited factual statement, I may give you credit for it if it is otherwise a logical point consistent with your line of argument and I do not know it to be false.
UPDATED 02/20/2024
I am a coach with more than a decade of experience in the speech/debate community, including as the coach of two NSDA national champion teams in World Schools Debate. I spend most of my tournament days in tournament administration, or running/working Tab, though I still judge on occasion. I work mostly with World Schools Debate, Congress, Public Forum, and Parliamentary competitors, as well as with Speech competitors. I am somewhere between lay and proficient as an LD judge, and I should be treated as a lay judge in Policy rounds.
As of February 2024, I have squirreled less than 8% of rounds that I've judged.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Brief roadmaps are welcome and appreciated. Also, please signpost! I shouldn’t leave the round wondering what your primary case arguments were, and how they correlate with those belonging to your opponents.
2. Frame and weigh arguments/impacts/evidence/etc for me and provide a clear analysis of the various items on the flow. As important as it is that I can identify that debaters' arguments, it's even more important for you to guide me through comparative weights and why your arguments/evidence/analysis is stronger and/or more important than those of your opponents.
3. I generally believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof. If AFF can’t make the case why their proposition is better than the status quo, NEG is almost certain to get my ballot. On the other hand, it isn't enough for NEG to simply say, "AFF's world isn't perfect, therefore NEG's world is better and you must negate".
4. If you do not address your opponents’ arguments, I am assuming you do not intend to refute them. Time management is important when strengthening your arguments and still leaving room to refute your opponents’. Take a few seconds to collapse so my flow is clean at the end of the round.
5. Treat me as though I have an at-best average understanding of what you're debating. I consider myself a fairly well-informed and logical person, so while I'm likely understanding the terminology and abbreviations you are rushing through, I have blind spots (like all human beings). I generally provide more weight to things that you spend time emphasizing--if you're taking the time to make sure I understand something, I'm going to assume it's pretty damn important.
6. I am not really Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech. I probably vote more consistently on the side of tech, but if you make an argument that is wildly untrue/unreasonable, I'm not going to vote for it regardless of whether your opponents call that argument out or not.
7. I'm open to a good/reasonable K, but there are very few instances where I believe a K has both been argued effectively and makes sense in the context of the round. I will never, never vote on disclosure theory, so don't bother running it.
8. Please don't ask me for my e-mail address to send me your case. I should be able to flow without reading your case, and I'm also just fundamentally opposed to adult judges/coaches having correspondence with students who are not their own.
Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:
1. DO NOT SPREAD. If you are speaking and moving too quickly that I can’t keep up, we have a problem that could end with me missing something crucial to your case. I will stop taking notes if I cannot understand you.
2. There is a fine line between charm and smarm. Know the difference, because I certainly do. Humor, when done well and at the appropriate time, will endear me to you as a speaker. Too much humor/sass/sarcasm, and I think you've misunderstood this competition for amateur night at your local comedy club. In World Schools Debate, I am generally more willing to give latitude for sass than I am in any other event.
3. If your opponent calls for a card, you should have it relatively readily available. I don’t expect it to be at your side immediately, but when we get past 45 seconds, I’m either losing my patience or start to suspect you don’t have it.
4. PF'ers - Cross and Grand Cross should not be seen as opportunities to see who can speak the loudest or be the most assertive.
WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE
In general, my expectation for WSD rounds is that you are taking your opponents at their highest ground. Motions should be reasonably interpreted, but I am not interested in an interpretation-exclusive approach to rebutting your opponents' arguments. Call out abuse when reasonable, and move on.
Compare worlds for me--to win the comparative, you need to prove to me that your world is substantively better than your opponents', and explain why.
Content: What does your case look like? Are your arguments fully fleshed-out? I expect you to state your claim, establish plenty of warrants behind that claim, and link concrete impacts. I reward solid analysis with high scores. If you can present effective practical and principle arguments to me, you can expect a high Content score.
Style: This one's pretty straightforward. I mark down speech readers, and boost solid rhetoric turns/flips. I want to know that you, as a speaker, are fully engaged with your opponents and judge(s). This is the one event where I like debaters to have more "colorful" rhetoric--and as long as what you're saying isn't flagrantly rude or disrespectful, I'll probably enjoy the sass and humor, and boost your Style score for it.
Strategy: This is where I evaluate your approach to the motion, as well as how you approach your opponents' case and arguments. One of the most important things that I look for are your understanding of arguments that require your response and arguments that require your dismissiveness. I expect you to break down the flow, but not all arguments are created equally. I recognize solid strategy scores from debaters who are able to zero in on the arguments that are likely to matter to me at the end of the round. I also expect POI's to have a purpose--they're the Chekov's gun of this event. If you're asking a POI, it should be evident at some point in the next speech why that POI was asked.
CONGRESS
In general, I highly value Congressional debaters who are equally adept at rhetoric/presentation and argumentation/technical debate skills. I don't flow a Congress round the same way I might any other debate round, but I AM tracking arguments and who is helping to structure and frame the debate.
You can be the best speaker in the round, but if you disappear during other speakers' CX, you should expect to be marked down significantly.
Unless you are the very first speaker on legislation, I expect at least one small refutation from you during your speech. The later the round goes, your refutation bar rises higher.
Late-round speakers who do not add anything substantive to the debate will not stand out for me. Even if you feel there aren't many new arguments left to be made, crystallize other arguments for me and explain why some matter more than others.
Presiding Officers - I should feel like I'm very much in YOUR chamber, not mine. PO's who truly control the room are the ones who stand out. I weigh your efficiency, procedural knowledge, and style.
Hi, my name is Nate, I’m a graduate psychology major, and also a lay judge.
-
Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.
-
To save time, please try and set up ev exchange before the round starts.
-
Hold each other accountable and time yourselves.
-
Definitely don't speed. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed. I’ll try to say “speed” if you’re going too fast but try to avoid that so I don't miss anything.
-
I’ll try my best to take notes, so please signpost for me
-
Make your link chain super explicit and implicate your args. It’s easier for me to vote for you if you guide me.
Be nice and respectful to each other and have fun :)
Hi everyone! Quick paradigm: I would consider myself to be a lay judge. This is my first year being a part of speech and debate, and I’ve only judged at one or two tournaments before this (and primarily not in debate). While I do understand the basic terminology (contentions, claims, warrants, impacts, etc) more advanced terms like “Ks” and “theory” are things I’m not super familiar with. On that note, please do not do anything too “techy” because I will not be able to follow it and, as a result, I will not be able to vote for you. As a general rule of note I would prefer simple, well-reasoned out arguments. To determine if you’re doing this type of argumentation ask yourself three things: 1. Is the organization of my speeches and the flow easy to follow? 2. Do I present arguments that rely on an effective combination of evidence and logic? And 3. Do I respond to my opponent’s arguments while also effectively defending and reinforcing my own? If you do these three things and all have clear comparisons between your side of the debate and your opponent’s, you should be good to go! Finally, I am working on developing stronger flow skills. That said, I should be able to follow what is said in the round effectively and then judge based on those notes, but, again, your level of organization and comparison will have a huge impact on how easily and effectively this is done.
Public Forum
Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.
Judged in SCU & North Bay.
I debated policy debate my freshman year and in public forum the year after, but I’m out of practice by 8 years. Treat me as a lay former competitor.
I am a parent judge. No Jargon please.
Please speak clearly.
Truth > Tech.
I will post the results to Tabroom for the prelim rounds.
Be respectful and good luck!
she/her/hers
tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. :')
Judging preferences - Summary
UPDATE: please ask me how many rounds I've judged...If it's more than 5 back-to-back rounds, please ignore the rest of this document and just treat me like a lay judge... (If I ever judge 15 back-to-back double-flighted debate rounds again I may lose it.) Also if i look angry im just locked in im so sorry lol
Always signpost. pls. always. signpost clearly. Always. Literally I can’t judge you properly if you’re not signposting.
Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.
My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD bc of status quo and whatnot. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.
Big LD prefs:
I want a value and a value criterion please. Idc if there’s policies in the case itself, but I typically weigh the debate on the values provided bc LD is a values debate, after all. I like theory in LD more than in PF or parli, and will entertain the idea more. I'm more truth over theory unless the theory is rlly good. please don't waste my time and your opponent's time with time suck args.
In-Depth Prefs:
Please - Always signpost.
Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. Furthermore, if you do spread - there better be signposting and pauses/changes in speed to emphasize that you are changing gears/moving onto what part of the road map you’re on. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread to spread, become a policy debater.
Flow Style is typically on paper bc I’m old school like that, so if you're speaking so fast/spreading without pauses in a way that I can't shorthand write it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.
Plans are fun! I love a good plan! Call me Senator Elizabeth Warren the way I love a good plan. (Emphasis on a good plan.) Just remember that plans aren’t legal in all debate events.
Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.
Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.
Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. It’s just not that serious. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)
Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, and they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.
Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much. They just bore me.
Email for chains: Leamulanc@gmail.com
About me:
Assistant Coach at Los Osos High School
Former Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
Donuts D. Roberts Coach
CHSSA Board Member
CBSR VP of Speech
Informative kid yrs ago and other stuff
Frequently hungry and/or sleepy in round
Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.
Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)
If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.
PUBLIC FORUM
Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.
Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.
IN GENERAL
I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.
I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.
BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR
I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.
K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.
Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.
I competed in speech and debate for 3 years, I debated at nats, as well as many TOC circuit tournaments. I am a flow judge, meaning that I judge on line by line debate rather than big picture. I don't flow cross-examination, meaning that you need to bring up any arguments or concessions during your speech. I will generally count dropped arguments as lost arguments, but you have to extend attacks on the argument for your opponent to lose it. Disrespect towards your opponent will make it very hard for you to win the round. No theory unless in framework, and K’s have to be well argued if you want to win.
Email: hannahdu@gmail.com
I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.
I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.
GBX Update:gbx is my first tournament on the topic, don't assume any topic knowledge
hi im ahmad, 4 year pf debater for college prep er. for the chain: add BOTH aselassaad@ucdavis.edu and collegepreppf@gmail.com please
quals: did some stuff won some stuff
if ur a novice: skim the substance part of my paradigm but stick to this: speak clearly and at your own speed. line-by-line in first rebuttal, frontline and line-by-line in second rebuttal, collapse and weigh well in summary and and final focus. make sound arguments and make it clear what i should vote on. most importantly have fun!
tldr: tech>>>>>>truth. i prefer substance rounds. weigh, warrant, and speak as fast as u want. extend args with warrants, links, and impacts through summary and ff. weigh links and turns and pretty much everything else. i'm willing to vote off of anything (i mean anything) as long as ur winning it, just don't be offensive or discriminatory.
lim as tech→∞ (1/tech) = truth
things to know:
ALL EV SENT SHOULD BE CUT CARDS
im cool with tag-team cross, flex prep, skipping grand, and pretty much anything as long as both teams agree. i give high speaks so just debate ur debate.
im good with speed but if ur reading 1000+ words in case or rebuttal a speech doc should be sent to everyone before speech. dont read more than u can handle, reading 3 good contentions is better than reading 5 bad ones where u didnt even get to the impact on c5.
calling for cards takes way too long and delays debates, so speech docs should be sent anyway.
send marked docs
i prefer winning debates > educational debates
prep time or no time.
substance:
i vote off the flow in this order (for substance rounds): meta-weighing>weighing>offense. please please make sure you have offense in the round, I dont know how many times ive seen neither team extend any offense and that makes my job much harder which makes it harder for u to get my vote.
extending internal links and impacts are a MUST, but my threshold for extensions is pretty low. as long as u say the internal link and impact i consider it extended. this also applies for the rest of the uq/link-chain.
impact defense is lowk underrated and under-used, some of these impact scenarios r getting a little ridiculous. many teams read crazy nuke prolif and first strike scenarios that other teams just take for granted and let slide. if a team just calls them out on it and tells me that their impact is ridiculous for x and y (doesnt need to be carded) that makes the job of the impact reading team much harder.
impact out ur turns! if u read a turn on an arg that the opponents r going for, u can just say smth like "we access their impact of xy". if ur going for a turn on a dropped arg, u need to extend the impact of the contention since the opponents presumably aren't extending it anymore.
please interact with the args on the flow, extending responses thru ink might as well be a waste of ur time. that being said, defense is somewhat sticky.
weighing:
i was an extinction first debater, but i will vote on any sv or extinction framing. the thing abt sv framing that many miss is that its rly easy for a team reading an extinction impact to link in to the sv framing, so the sv team has to explain why even evaluating the impact of the other side bites the link into ur framing.
probability over magnitude needs to be well warranted, please dont just say "prefer high probability impacts over low ones" or else ill be left asking why. the default is bigger impacts o/w smaller impacts, which is why i default extinction o/w.
carded weighing is fire.
prereqs save lives
theory:
default no RVIs and competing interps (and drop the debater). shells should be read in the speech directly after the violation happened. friv theory is wtv, do what u need to do to win, but my threshold for everything from extensions to weighing will be higher. text>spirit.
i default disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, rr good, os>full text.
K's:
im gonna be slower here, treat me like a flay and read at your own risk.
for nontopical Ks, i might as well be a flay judge that pretends to understand whats going but really doesnt.
tricks:
tricks r very fun, but u should know what ur doing. eval after 1ac is a stretch but im still willing. my rule is that all tricks must be in the speech doc.
phil/high theory:
read non-t K's above. run at ur own risk, but im very interested in this stuff so who knows
good luck and have fun! :)
cool individuals:
my favorite judges r gabe rusk, andy stubbs, kate zellig, les phillips, charlie synn, eli glickman, and william pirone.
CREW
My views align with Arnav Ratna.
this guy is kinda based
happy birthday TQ
I am a parent judge with limited experience. Please do not spread and remember to signpost. Please be respectful and remember to have fun!
Debate: speak clearly and at a normal rate.
Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator"
Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.
Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times
I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.
Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”
TL;DR
I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.
———PART I: SPEECHES———
Signposting:
Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.
Cross:
I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.
Rebuttal:
Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.
Summary:
Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.
Final Focus:
First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.
———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———
Voting:
I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.
Evidence:
Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.
Email Chains:
I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.
Prep Time:
Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.
Speech Times:
These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.
Speed:
I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
Speaks:
Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.
Postrounding:
Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.
Trigger Warnings:
I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).
———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———
You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.
Preferences:
Theory/T - 1
LARP - 1
Kritik - 3
Tricks - 3
High Theory - 4
Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)
Performance - 5 (Strike)
Theory:
I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.
Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.
Kritiks:
I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.
Tricks:
These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.
Everything Else:
Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.
TKO:
If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks. At the Barkley Forum tournament, I will treat a TKO as an argument, and I will therefore not end the round immediately.
I have been involved in forensics since 2019, first as a competitor and now as a coach. My main focus has always been public forum but I am well experienced in judging and overall consuming all forms of debate. Put simply even with that said I prefer to be treated as a lay judge; I like explanations, I like consumable argumentation, and I hate spreading. With that said one thing I will accept is very "techy" approaches that the average lay judge may not pick up on, most notably Ks. With that said in each form of debate I expect you to be able to relate your arguments to the natural conditions of a win within your round that being a frame work, value, or simple Cost/Benefit analysis. Over all I'm here for the spirit of debate and only have 3 rules: be respectful, try your hardest, and do not spread.
For Parli:
I’ve never judged Parli before. I’d say to be on the safe side, treat me like a lay judge who knows what debate is.
For PF:
I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college sophomore judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.
My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.
Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the respective speech for the sake of time.
My email is rohunx12@gmail.com
Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.
To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).
To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).
However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response/defense. That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.
To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:
Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)
No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?
Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.
HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.
If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.
parent judge. don't spread. I like clear speaking and easy to understand arguments.
Hi,I’m a parent judge and I’m excited to participate in this year’s debate circuit.
I’m more of a flow judge who does not prefer “spreading” so maintain a comfortable pace that ensures that I can capture the essence of your contentions, the evidence that you use and your rebuttals.
Best of luck in the tournament!
Hey y’all I’m evan's partner. I competed mostly in parli, but I’m familiar with other debate and also did a good bit of speech.
PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. THEY'RE AMONG THE EASIEST WAYS TO WIN ROUNDS IN FRONT OF ME.
tl;dr
-
I debated for 5 years and am now a coach @MVLA
-
Comfortable w most tech, don’t assume I know your lit base, eh on speed
-
Truth > tech meaning you have to explain the truth of your argument (warrant- logical/phil/analytical/evidence) for me to buy them (I won’t fill it in)
- An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication. I need all three to consider an argument. (especially an impact/implication)
-
Please weigh and layer your args/impacts, I’d hate to intervene and if I do, you likely won’t get the result you want
- Be sure to explicitly extend arguments (especially uniqueness and impacts), I can't extend them for you, and can't vote very well on arguments dropped.
-
Be good, nice, kind people :)
- I stop flowing entirely after 10 seconds overtime
For the full paradigm (it’s a mess so feel free to clarify):
My experience-- I competed in 70-75 odd tournaments in my career, mostly in Norcal Parli, was mostly a case debater but had a decent understanding of tech, ran some theory, etc etc. Qualled to TOC twice and broke as well, was a SVUDL Parli merchant. Got a pretty good amount of experience with all types of debating- norcal, socal, apda, etc. I also qualled to nats in duo (speech).
General Paradigmatic Things:
-
When I say that I’m “truth over tech” it doesn’t mean I automatically intervene wherever-- it just means that you have to explain to me why your arguments are true for me to buy them. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant (can be empirical, analytical, logical reasoning, etc), and an impact/implication. Absent these aspects I find it hard to buy an argument. Without a warrant, idk why I should buy your argument. Absent an implication, even if the argument might be true, I still can't do anything with that argument.
- I'm going to say this one more time: PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. Terminalizing impacts doesn't mean that everything ends in extinction. Rather, it means that you've proven that the impact is inherently a good/bad thing under the given framework for the round. Ie, death/dehum/Qol under a util/net ben FW. Read a proper link chain that takes the necessary steps to get from your links to your impacts, I find it hard to buy randomly detached impacts otherwise.
-
I do my very best to protect the flow but please call the POO
-
Y’all figure out how you want to handle POIs between yourselves and the other debaters in the round, my job is to evaluate the round that happens, not control your every move.
-
Please for the love of all things good -- be respectful to one another. This means doing your very human best to make the round accessible to your opponents and also treating everyone with fair respect.
-
As much as I love a good goofy argument, but exercise your good reason and restraint.
-
I default to presuming neg absent a counter-advocacy (otherwise I’ll presume aff). If you tell me to presume a different way, I’ll do that instead. I’d much rather vote on substance than presume, so please don't make me vote on presumption.
- As stated earlier, I will give y'all a 5-15 second grace period after speech time to finish your thought, I will not flow any new arguments after speech time is up. I will stop you once you hit 30ish seconds over time because we need to move on.
- Please signpost, and try to progress through the speech in a consistent order, if you lose me on the flow it will only hurt you.
Case Debate Stuff:
- I am completely down for all forms of case debate. I will do my best to evaluate every round regardless if it's BP/APDA/Norcal/etc. resolution/case read by a team. At the end of the day, I'm here to evaluate the arguments and the round in front of me.
-
I love a good case debate. I was pretty much entirely a flowish case debater for most of my career. Please be mindful about what you’re reading, it’s very easy to slip into saying something problematic while trying to justify arguments under Net Ben/Util. Debate also unfortunately puts us in positions to argue tough topics and it’s our job to make sure we handle those as sensitively and respectfully as possible. Additionally, attempting to justify genocide, outright racism, or anything else of the kind is an autodrop.
-
Onto actual case stuff-- I default to weighing on Net Bens but I’m down for any other framework that y’all wanna try to run
-
Please extend your arguments yourself- I will not do this for you. When there are responses made to your arguments, make sure to engage with them and not just repeat what you said the first time around.
-
Clash is important. Weighing is also important. Try to use your rebuttal speeches to write my ballot for me in the ways that you see fit.
- I am ALWAYS down for a good framework debate. That being said, it's on you to (1) Justify your framework (especially against your opponents' framework), (2) Explain what the implications of your arguments are under your framework (what are your impacts and why do they matter under your framework), (3) Probably is strategic to at least briefly explain why you're winning underboth frameworks (but that's ultimately up to you).
- I have a high threshold for big stick impacts (extinction). Not only do you need warrants, but you need to explain every step of the scenarios that lead to your big stick impacts. It's not enough to say regional instability -> miscalc -> nuke war -> extinction.
- Internal Links are important. Link analysis is key to the impact debate, and I don't see enough quality work on the links these days. Impacts don't work without the links.
Theory
After much deliberation, I've decided that I'm probably not the judge to run random friv in front of. I will ultimately evaluate the flow, but I'll be incredibly skeptical at best with any friv t args, and I'll happily take any chance to not vote on it. I have a high threshold for friv t, probably not the most strategic type of argument in front of me. Sorry to the theory debaters who got excited.The standard CI > Reasonability, etc. applies here too-- I don’t wanna intervene in the round if I don’t have to. Please read explicit layering claims for your standards and voters. I hate intervening and again, you’re probably gonna be unhappy about the way that I evaluate the round if you don’t tell me how to view the round. PLEASE BE MINDFUL ABOUT READING THINGS IN AN ACCESSIBLE MANNER AND NOT READING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC OR EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE WITHIN THE ROUND.
K
Pretty simple here: I’m super down for K debate, but don’t assume I am familiar with your lit base, I do my best to evaluate the flow alone. While evaluating the K I start at the framework and ROB layer before working my way to advocacy (and figuring out the link/impact debate). Don’t ever leave me to evaluate the K by myself. Just like any other type of argument, it’s YOUR job to tell me where, when, and how to vote. Please actually defend your K and engage in genuine clash with your opponent’s responses, just repeating what you said the first time gets me absolutely nowhere (note that you should still be extending, just don’t ONLY extend).
[silly rabbit] Trix [are for kids]
Uhhhh… Honestly, it depends on my mood-- run at your own risk. Chances are, I'm probablynot in the mood to hear em.
IVIs ig
Read what you want. I’m personally not a fan of the extreme proliferation of IVIs that I’ve seen in my time and the often frivolous nature in which they tend to be read. That being said, when justified, I’ll vote on them. Please layer them, absent layering claims there’s nothing I can do for you here, and also implicate them.
Other stuff
-
Speaks: I default to 29.2 for the winning team and 28.4 for the other team. I’ll give out 30s if I see top tier debating :)
-
Please read trigger warnings when applicable. If you’re unsure whether something needs a trigger warning, please air on the side of caution.
!!! Please feel free to clarify or ask any further questions about my paradigm/view on debate before the round starts, I’m more than happy to answer and help you out.
Excited to judge your round and I hope you have a great round and great tournament :)
email for email chain: skadi.debate6@gmail.com (or just for questions).
I am a parent judge, this is my 2nd year judging. Please don't spread, I try to follow all contentions but when you go too fast, I may miss some of your points. Clear signposts are very helpful. I tend to take a lot of notes and setting up a structure for what is coming makes it easier for me to look back at the notes and provide better feedback. Be respectful to each other and have fun!
As a first-time parent judge, my focus will be on logic, flow, and the quality of evidence presented. Please speak at a reasonable pace and avoid rushing; otherwise, I may miss important points.
Background
I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.
General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)
Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:
- Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
- Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
- Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
- Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
- Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
General Debate Philosophy
I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.
Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Regarding speaker points:
I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."
Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.
Structure/Organization:
Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.
Framework (FW):
In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.
In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.
Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Regarding the decision (RFD):
I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.
A few exceptions to this rule:
- Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
- Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
- Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.
I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.
Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.
A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.
B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.
C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.
Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.
Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.
SPEED:
I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.
Irrational Paradigm
This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.
- No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
College student with 4 years of experience in High School PF (3 years competitive and 1 year as captain) - updated Sept 2024
email: swara.anurag@gmail.com
PSA
- Remember that debate is a fun activity but often very applicable to the real world-- racism/classism/sexism/homophobia/etc. won't be tolerated
- Trigger warnings and consent through a google form/text message/etc. is required for sensitive topics
- Be civil during cross
Paradigm
- Only what is extended will be considered. Impact calc is very important, and please quickly restate the link chain before weighing the impact in FF.
- Track your own prep time, and start the next speech immediately if prep is not being taken. If you call for a card, finding the card is on their prep, reading it is on yours.
- Anything important from cross needs to be brought up in speeches.
- TECH > TRUTH. If you debate it well enough and it goes unrefuted, I will give it to you.
- No new arguments can be brought up after constructive (aka your rebuttal is not an extension of your case.) New evidence and analytics can be introduced if in response to the opponents.
- Signpost.
- Feel free to ask follow up questions after RFDs.
Speaks
- awarded based on clarity, signposting, ethos/pathos/logos, and audibility
hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc
lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu
tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening
my preferences:
honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please
please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said
bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)
i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round
if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up
please please please be nice to each other in cross and throughout the round it makes you seem like a better debater and i'll like you more
progressive args:
i will buy anything but ONLY IF
1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this
2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will start sobbing on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision
basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge
I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.
I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.
I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.
I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.
Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.
tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
--
about me:
she/her
i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's
--
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and bad for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.
--
Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research.
--
email chains:
please add both
--
non-negotiables:
1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.
2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.
3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.
4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.
--
i will not flow from the speech doc.
i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:
1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)
2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)
i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot
--
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!
--
Some general notes
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.
Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good.
--
Speaker points:
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
--
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
--
Case:
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.
--
Planless affs:
I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.
You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
--
T/framework vs planless affs:
In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:
The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.
--
Theory:
Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.
Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.
Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.
Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.
--
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).
--
Kritiks (neg):
I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.
I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.
I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!
In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.
--
Disads:
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
--
Counterplans:
I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
No judge kick. Make a choice!
Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.
--
Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational
-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc
-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument
-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such
-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc
-"tricks"
-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist
-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar
-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter
-new affs bad
--
Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:
-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic
-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies
-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate
-"role of the ballot"
-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate
-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr
--
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking and debate company. And I have judged many rounds of speech and debate events and I love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.
Above all, keep things civil.
Extensive evidence is no use if not analyzed.
Your arguments ought to be able to convince both myself and my 7-year-old cousin.
I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics. Be nice to your opponents and your debate partner.
One last thing. I do not think PF debate has the capacity to provide space to have a good debate about arguments relating to "disclosure" and "paraphrasing" as a reason to lose a debate. It is an international event and those particular cultural norms are not accessible for everyone across the planet of debate.
hypertech??
good theory>substance>traditional K's>friv theory>trix>identity K's>non-T aff (but i’ll evaluate anything)
Add me to the chain: aramehran@berkeley.edu & fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com
I'm receptive to K's, but you need to do your own research; if it's stolen my threshold for evaluating responses is lower than my willpower to avoid an Apple Mango Pineapple Cinnamon Deep Fried Spring Roll with THREE scoops of ice cream. I feel like K's in PF can fail because the speech times are so short, also because counterplans just shouldn't exist? Because of... unlucky hits in out rounds and up brackets at tournaments, I'm familiar with queer futurism, hauntology, fem, sec, and orientalism, but regardless, all K's must be explained to me as if I am a young orphan still being weened off my pacifier.
Weigh? Please? Weighing isn't going up and spending five seconds telling me you're winning magnitude. I am not a jellyfish, nor am I the parent who voted off persuasiveness in your previous round. Do comparative weighing, prereqs, short circuits, link ins, probability. Metaweighing is of utmost importance!
Please post round i think it’s educational and i enjoy verbal jousting.
Please extend the internal link... please... im begging
30 speaks if you win a staring contest in cross (WITH YOUR OPPONENT, DON'T STARE AT ME YOU WIERDO)
zan zendegi azadi!!!
Hello! I have five years of debate experience, primarily in PF. I also competed in Congress, Extemp, OO, and OSWP (for funsies). I am also learning Policy to compete on the college circuit.
TLDR: Tech judge who will vote on most arguments, so long as they are extended properly. Have good logic, back it up with evidence, and win the flow.
Email: iammottern@gmail.com Include me on the email chain if you use one, but I won't look at cards unless you tell me to. If you spread, pls send doc. Email me if you have questions from the round and I will try to get to them.
Please ask me questions! I am more than happy to answer if we have time. Its only a loss if you learn nothing.
General:
While my background is in PF, these things apply to any debate I'm judging.
- Extend properly: If you do not extend something, I will not vote on it. Extensions are also more than just saying a card name or saying 'extend it'. At a minimum, you must reiterate the argument and explain the basic link chain. This is why the summary/1AR is so important. It does not have to be long, but I need to be able to put some kind of ink on the flow. Collapsing definitely helps.
- Win your impact. This is how I am able to vote for you. Without an impact you have nothing. I would rather you spend the time winning the argument and extending the impact than do frivolous weighing when your link chain is broken.
- Signpost. If you don't I will be confused and give a sad ballot (nobody wants that).
- Tech > truth. I will buy almost everything you say, given it has some sense of logic and/or evidence. That said, I prefer it if the debate is grounded in reality. Inherently untrue arguments have an extremely low bar to rebut, ie) saying 'no the sky isn't pink' is enough for me to drop the false argument. Conversely, it will take a lot more to drop an argument that is grounded in truth.
- I can handle (and prefer) fast speed, but not full-on spreading. If you are going faster than 300 WPM I doubt I will retain much of anything. Send a doc if you decide to go faster than that. If you don't see my G2 moving, you are too fast. Make me happy and don't go that fast.
- Have fun and be chill - debate is a game. Treat everyone kindly. If you are rude it's an auto 20 speaks and I have no issue dropping you.
Progressive Debate
I am down to hear and vote on pretty much any argument. That said, I have limited experience in progressive debate. This just means you might want to take a little extra time to explain what your argument is saying. I find Ks super interesting, just make it clear what your K is doing and how it affects the round. I am pretty good for Theory debates, just stress your voters and how I, as a judge, should vote based on the violation. Ultimately, if I don't understand something, I will not vote for it. If your argument is complicated and takes so long it leaves you with no other offense, I might advise shifting strategy.
PF
This is the event I have the most experience in, so please make it a good technical debate. PF is public and should be accessible to people who walk into the round. So, have fun with the arguments, but have strong logic and argue things that actually matter. I would rather we have an in-depth and educational debate on the stock issues of war/econ than something philosophical and nonsensical. Here are some specific pointers:
- I default to cost-benefit analysis and would prefer debates on this framework, but if you give me something else I am more than happy to use it, just actually implicate it in the round.
- Give me an order before your speech, but don't make it more than 5 seconds long - it annoys me if it is longer.
- No sticky defense, you have to extend everything or I won't have it on my flow. In the same vein, if a rebuttal/frontline is dropped then tell me in your speech that it was, and then extend your argument.
- I am super picky about summary. You must have real extensions, and tell me the impact. If you don't extend it properly in summary, I cannot vote for you.
- Weighing is great, but it's not the most important thing for me. Ultimately I need a mechanism to vote, otherwise, I would intervene (I don't want to do that and neither do you). Beyond that, however, I value the link itself more. It's great that you may win on weighing, but I do not care if you did not extend, your link makes no sense, or there is unanswered defense.
- Please organize the back half of the round well. Jumping all over the place makes me sad. I always liked a top-down line-by-line.
- Collapsing is the strat
- Because PF is intended to be accessible, I don't love prog debate in this event specifically. A Cap K or basic theory shell here and there is fun, but I wouldn't advise making it your main strategy. If your opponents have no idea how to debate progressives, I think it is a waste of time and ruins the educational experience if you spend an hour beating your opponents because they do not get what Bio-Power even means. On the other hand, if both teams are down to debate it, have fun with it.
LD
This is the event I have the least experience in, so I will probably scratching my head the whole time trying to figure out what justice means or smth. Take the time to explain stuff, especially more philosophical arguments. Because I don't know exactly what is going on, I have no specific preferences outside of my general comments. Take the initiative and tell me what matters in the debate and why.
Policy
Currently learning how to do this. Seems fun. I have barely judged CX before, thus treat me as a flay judge. I am familiar with most of the basic argumentation. Don't go fast.
Pronouns: she/her/hers
TL;DR: I'm a flay judge through and through. I'll follow certain philosophical argumentation that you bring up if it's warranted and well thought out, but I will typically value case-based argumentation over finicky kritiks or baseless theory. The best way to win my ballot is to articulate structure, clear links, and solid terminalized impacts (even better if you cleanly collapse).
About me: I competed in the NPDL circuit as a parliamentary debater for Irvington Debate all 4 years of high school then competed for NYU PDU for 2 years in college. I competed at TOC in 2020 (? if I remember the year correctly), and I've broken/placed at a number of tournaments over the years (Stanford Invitational, Cal Parli, Milpitas, Columbia, etc.). With that being said I am a flay judge, so hopefully, the rest of my paradigm clears up my judging preferences and thought process.
Logistics: Please don't spread. It's possibly my least favorite thing about debate, and the debate space is ruined for everyone if you try to rush through all of your arguments at an incomprehensible speed. I would rather you clearly read one line than read 5 that your opponents and I can't understand. I'll say "clear" or "slow" a few times if you are going at a speed that I cannot follow, after which I will just stop flowing entirely. Try to avoid using jargon or any derogatory, targeted language. I'll listen to you as long as you are speaking, but my flow will stop after the 15 second grace period. Try to avoid tag-teaming if you can and if you do tag-team, make sure that the speaker is re-articulating the argument that the non-speaker is adding.
Flowing: I would appreciate if you offer an off-time roadmap before so I can properly organize my flow. Please signpost (taglines especially)! I'll understand if you use the word "cross-apply" for certain points to flow through impacts, but I personally think it is more effective if you explain your link chains even if they've been brought up before. It makes collapsing easier later too!
Plans: This is pretty basic. As the aff, just give me a clear plantext (definitions, agent, any nuances, etc.) and stick to it throughout the debate.
Counterplans: I always like CP's when they're well crafted and argued. Avoid running pics, because they give the aff very little ground. If you do, I'll evaluate aff plans with an extra aspect of fairness regardless of if pic theory is run.
Theory: I'm receptive to theory if it is necessary. Frivolous theory is a pet peeve of mine, and I'm sure to your opponents too. I like fleshed-out t-shells, so impact it out as much as you can. Give me voters (and RVI's if you're on the receiving end)!
Kritiks: I have mixed opinions on kritiks. If you truly understand the philosophy and argumentation behind it, by all means, run a kritik. With that being said though, kritiks were brought into neo-parli debate from LD really quickly for flair, which means a majority of debaters don't actually understand what they're arguing and are just spewing out information from pre-written or memorized sheets. It makes the debate really confusing (and sometimes morally questionable) if you try to run a kritik without having read the literature/looking into ideologies fully, so just stick to case debate if you can.
POIs: It's up to your discretion to take or ask for POIs, so do what you need to do!
POOs: I'll protect the flow, but if you feel it's a pressing matter, go ahead and POO.
Just some general tips: 1. Don't exclude your opponents out of the round. I hate hate HATE when debaters use blatantly rude, misogynistic, or racist terminology while debating and you'll lose speaker points if you do so.
2. Have fun! Tournaments can be really stressful, but they're ultimately the fun part of debate (or at least they were for me). You meet new people, learn different ways of argumentation that you haven't thought about before, and grow as a person. So take full advantage!
Please feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round, and I'll be happy to answer! Have fun :)
I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 12th year of coaching and my 13th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate.
Truth > tech
I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CXs in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey” PF.
Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great!
---PERSONAL INFO---
I'm a coach. I did PF + Extemp.
I prefer flowing traditional cases, but I'll accept Theory and Kritiks that I can understand. I will default to clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you read a shell that explains that spreading should be preferred.
In my opinion, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly clear why they are winning. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful in your speech. Not very persuaded by performative debate. Not very persuaded by K Affs. Stay respectful while trying new things.
--- GENERAL DEBATE ---
Speed
CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.
I can't vote for cases I don't understand. Practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Slow down for tags you want me to copy down exactly (if I miss it, that's on you!).
Speaks
GOOD FAITH DEBATING > EVERYTHING ELSE. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds.
Eval
Theory > Kritik > Case
Tech > Truth.... ig... can y'all just tech the truth. pls. thx.
Theory
Topicality of your case should be obvious. Ground-skewing framework in the first constructive is ok with me if you can justify that it is necessary. Shells need to be read in the very next speech after the violation. I'm usually not persuaded to buy disclosure arguments against smaller schools.
Kritik
If possible, avoid against novice/trad. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow. I like interesting new K's; I'm also here to learn! But, I see bad faith K's as an automatic RVI. Run relevant K's please. Running a K in bad faith guarantees a loss.
Counter-plan
If possible, avoid against novice/trad. Yes in LD. No in PF.
Tricks
If possible, avoid against novice/trad. I'd vote for a good trick. Remain respectful of the format. Show me something cool.
Turns
If one side kicks an argument and the other side extends a turn on it, I will still evaluate the turn. You can't just kick things lol.
---------------
With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.
If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
Interprektation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator"
Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.
Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times
For debate I do not like spreading. I don't want debaters to speak too fast.
Don't be unnecessarily mean to your opponent.
I haven't judged any preliminary rounds, so you have to re establish the resolution and context.
Thank you
I used to do debate. Labor and Public Economics and Education are my specialties (I hate banking).
I am not a lay judge.
I will consider goofy arguments if they are better than serious ones. As long as they are debated correctly.
If you can make it rhyme your score will be prime. Give me a "see what I did there" to make sure I don't miss it.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DONT BE BORING. ONLY THING I HATE MORE THAN A BORING DEBATE IS POLICY DEBATE.
IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS
Don't knock on the desk after each speech. Each knock is minus 0.1 speaker points. It goes up to minus 1 each time if you ignore my sad face.
If you want feedback ask me after the round. I will not be writing long RFD’s.
If both teams agree I will judge a round off of double loss theory and give very high speaker points.
Do NOT spread. I will stop listening and start playing Bloons Tower Defense 6 and instantly give you the loss. However, if you can spread without doing the breath/gasp thing then maybe I will close Bloons Tower Defense 6... maybe.
If you have a P.O.O. please say “Pause time Poop” That will be funny I think.
If the topic isn't Nuclear war then I don't wanna hear it.
I will NOT EVER accept a Counter Plan in LD, a K, or any type of disrespectful behavior.
good luck.
Hello!
I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.
PF
I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive just keep it clear and respectful. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speed that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH. IMPLICATE YOUR IMPACTS/ RESPONSES!
*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)
K’s
I am open to hearing Ks as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner).
Hi everyone! I'm a parent judge and I have jugged a few tournaments so far. This paradigm is written by my son, who is a competitor in Public Forum so I have some faint background information on the topic and PF, but that being said I still expect you to treat me like a lay judge.
-Please do NOT use any debate lingo unless you can articulately explain what it means (ex. non-unique, delink, uniqueness, etc.) If weighing on impacts, please explain what an impact is and why it's important.
-Keep track of your own time and also keep each other in check.
-Please go slow and give a lot of analysis, if I can't understand you I can't vote for you. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING.
-Be nice to each other in a round, I expect everyone to be respectful and kind.
If you have me as a judge for any other debate (LD, Parli), come into the round with the expectation that I have no idea how the format works and be prepared to explain to me the flow of the round.
Good luck everyone!
Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com
OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.
Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.
Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.
UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.
Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.
LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.
I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^
UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com
For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.
Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.
anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.
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.
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.
## About Me
- Pronouns: He/Him
- BSBA Finance + Pre-law student at USC
- Experienced in Varsity Public Forum (Dougherty Valley SD) and Impromptu
- PF debater for over 5 years, 17 bids (11 gold)
- 2023-2024 Gold Bid leader
- 9th at NSDA Nationals 2024
- GTOC 3x, NSDA 2X, CA States 2X
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe, etc; Finalist: Milpitas; Semis: Cal RR, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, etc
- Peaked #2
- Email: ivan.binds@gmail.com
## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 110%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory, etc
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred
##TLDR: Similar views to Nethra
## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want + Sit/Stand (No Preference)
- Be as assertive as you like
## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I've never had to flow of the doc in 4 years so we should be good
## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 10 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred
- DO NOT READ DEFINITIONS
## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns
- No need to extend shells, case, etc in Rebuttal (read as much new stuff as possible)
### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)
### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New meta*weighing allowed if ops weighing was introduced in 2nd summary, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated
## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight
## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence (at that point just send entire docs)
- Don't steal prep (I won't care unless the ops call you out)
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech for higher speaks
- If chosen to flash cards, time yourself + Ops when reading them
- It seems I have a high bar for Ev. Challenges/TKOs unless blatant Clipping, ellipses, distortion, etc. (Safer to just read a IVI?)
## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with Ks and theory
- Default: Theory > K > Case and Text > Spirit (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds obv.
- Don't just read tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round
- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIs if both teams agree.
- I've voted for anything, even friv theory (ie: water bottle theory)
## Speaks
- Generally high (above 29, 99.99% of the time)
- Docked for:
- Going 10 seconds over time (Time your ops please)
- Reading a shell you violate
- Humor is appreciated and can boost speaks
## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab
## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For default 29.9 speaks, provide me with water or some drink. (December Update*: I save 30s for immaculate performances)
Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle any substance rounds as well. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times (or whoever gives good warrants) Feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications. I had a longer paradigm before but ChatGPT has crystallized it pretty well :).
## Last thoughts: Have fun; you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.
I’m fairly new to the judging scene but here are some basic things I look for in a typical debate round:
1.) No spreading - I will only flow arguments that I am able to understand. Feel free to speak at a comfortable pace, but be conscious of the clarity and speed at which you do so.
2.) Stick to the resolution - Make sure to debate and bring up arguments that pertain to the resolution. That means no progressive arguments (kritiks, plans, pics, etc).
3.) Unfair Extrapolations - Make sure to link all arguments, don’t jump from one contention to an impact such as nuclear war without a clear and believable warrant.
4.) Respect - Finally, make sure to be respectful to all debaters and follow the time restrictions.
I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.
Background
I have experience in PF, Parli, Extemp, and Duo, with the majority of my judging in PF. I also coach PF. My goal is to evaluate rounds fairly and consistently, with an emphasis on clear argumentation, weighing, and impact analysis.
Before the Round
- If both teams arrive before me, go ahead and decide if you’re doing an email chain (include me—my email is at the end of my paradigm).
- Ensure your flow and prep materials are ready before the round begins.
In the Round
General Expectations:
- Delivery matters! Persuasion is key in PF, and speaking style affects speaker points.
- Utilize your prep time wisely.
- Be clear in stating your contentions and framework.
- Speed is fine, but don’t spread—I value clarity over speed.
- I am flowing, so make it easy for me to follow. Off-time roadmaps should not exceed 10 seconds.
- Rebuilding and extending arguments is critical. I need more than just tagline extensions to continue evaluating an argument.
- Weighing is non-negotiable. Tell me why you are winning the round and how to evaluate the debate.
Argumentation:
- I value logical and well-warranted arguments. Just because something is dropped doesn’t mean it’s automatically true if it’s poorly warranted or irrelevant.
- However, I can’t make arguments for you. Logical responses to outlandish or stretched arguments will be accepted if explained thoroughly.
- Avoid spending excessive time arguing over minor details, such as one source (there are some exceptions depending on the topic) or definition. Focus on big-picture clash and impact analysis.
- Link debates are often more important than impacts. Without a solid link, your impact won’t matter.
Weighing and Framework:
- Provide a clear weighing mechanism and carry it throughout the round. If your opponent’s mechanism goes uncontested, I will use theirs.
- If neither team provides a weighing mechanism, I will default to evaluating dropped arguments, clash, and overall impact.
- PF is different from Policy. Running most theory or Ks in this format is not optimal, especially given PF’s speech times. These are often used as “gotcha” strategies in PF, which detracts from meaningful engagement with the resolution.
Crossfire and Evidence Calls:
- I don’t typically flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider concessions or notable points, you must incorporate them into your speeches.
- Evidence should directly support your claims. Misrepresenting or cutting evidence out of context will lower your speaker points and may cost you the round.
Final Thoughts
Debate is about logic, reasoning, and engagement. Be creative, dynamic, and clear. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask before the round.
Remember to be considerate and respectful during the round. Disrespectful behavior or insensitive comments will lower your speaker points and can cost you the round. Debate may be competitive, but you are discussing real people and potential decisions that could have real-world consequences.
Most importantly, enjoy the opportunity to debate meaningful issues!
If doing an email chain please add me -gabri3ll30422@gmail.com
Duncan Stewart
Updates made 11/15/24
Background
2008-2011 LD debate-- Woods Cross High School
2011-2015 NPDA/NPTE-- University of Utah
2015-2017 Director of Debate-- Lewis and Clark College
2018-2019 Graduate Assistant Coach--University of Utah
2021-2022 Coach, TOC LD/CX-- Park City High
2024-Present Director of Forensics-- Cal State Long Beach
Overview
My preference is that you do what type of argumentation you like to do, and/or what is most strategic given the topic. I will not use my ballot as an attempt to discipline the activity in the direction I think it should go. If you win the argument on the flow I will vote for it-every time (or at least this is my goal). That being said, I judge debate via a line-by-line flow. If you have an alternate way you’d like me to evaluate the round, please specific about how, and why that is good. I will consider the debate in any manner you’d like me to. Just be clear about what that method is. I will use only your explanations of arguments to make my decision. Meaning even if an argument is ‘dropped’ it’s difficult for me to vote for it absent warrants and comparison to the resolution or role of the ballot/judge.
Theory
I don’t hold any universal positions on theory arguments. Debaters should get access to their arguments without an offensive theoretical objection explaining why that should not be the case. Have that debate. Please be clear about your interpretations, definitions, and weighing mechanisms.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Links come before risk calculation. Impact calculus will win you debates in front of me-- I largely view decision making as an evaluation of risk, unless directed otherwise. Unless specifically told otherwise, I will compare arguments via timeframe magnitude and probability. Defense makes both of our jobs easier, but only when accompanied by offense.
Counter plans
Please be clear about the status of the counter plan and how it operates in the contexts of the debate.
Kritiks
To be especially compelling these should be explained as if I have no familiarity with your literature (though I probably do). You should be specific about what you are criticizing. For example, if you are a questioning of methodology you should say so. Your criticism is easier to evaluate when the critique of the aff happens on the thesis/links level, not in the framework.
K Affs
Im not dogmatic when it comes to affirming the topic, or affirming the topic in a certain way. Though, I do find it more interesting when K Affs interact with the topic area of the resolution. Sure, talk about whatever you'd like-- Im curious to hear your research, but Id also love to hear how that research intersects with the topic (e.g. climate and ecology debates).
To get my ballot: The aff team should be clear about what levels the critique is operating on out of the 1AC- even if multiple. For example, are you: a critique of contemporary debate practices, the federal government, structural operations of race and capital, a particular model of education? All of the above? I would also like to be told in which order of priority I should be considering your layers of critique. I will default to evaluating framework vs neg objections, then alternative solvency if there is no thesis level objections from the neg about the affs understanding of power/being/decision making etc.
Framework
When answering this, Id prefer the aff read a counter interpretation and impact turn framework. Though, one or the other will suffice. My starting point is to compare the impacts of particular models of education/knowledge production unless told otherwise.
When the negative reads this I would like an impact to each standard. I understand voters on framework to tell me in what order I should consider standards. The negative wins my ballot more often when they are comparative in their analysis instead of playing block-solitaire. One heuristic I use is to consider negative framework arguments as a DA to the AFF model of debate.
Switch-Side
I tend to think this is good, but again, I am not dogmatic. There are valid criticisms of switch side debate.
Other general statements
I received my PhD in Rhetoric from the University of Utah so my understanding of critical literature typically comes from a rhetorical perspective. I tend to think language matters, but materiality matters most.
My paradigmatic thoughts on debate are ongoing-- feel free to ask questions.
Hello I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging so please bear with me. Speak very slowly and clearly and explain your arguments very well, have good evidence to back up your argument and make sure it's recent. Please try and avoid using inappropriate words, it will cost you my vote. Don't run any forms of progressive debate. Time your own speeches, if the opponent goes overtime I will still listen it's on you to stop them. I won't disclose at the end of the round. Have fun!
My approach to judging is to evaluate arguments based on clarity, logic and persuasiveness,
I value clear speaking, strong evidence, and logical reasoning.
I enjoy crossfires which where teams can strengthen their arguments, and final focus where everything comes together.
I vote for the team that better supports their sides of the resolution, presents coherent cases, and is able to persuade me.
I competed in PF for 6 years, so here are a few things I look out for:
- Signpost Signpost Signpost (I judge based on my flow, but if you mess up my flow, it will be harder for me to vote for you).
- Frontline! I expect the second rebuttal to frontline.
- If you read a sensitive constructive argument with no trigger warning, I will drop you with 0 speaks. The best way to run a trigger warning is by creating an anonymous google form with a general summary of your case. If anyone claims that they are uncomfortable with the topic, you should be switching it out with a more neutral argument.
- tech>truth. Even if it's crazy, I'll flow it.
- Engage with your opponents! I understand you have a block file with top-level responses, but make sure you're actually engaging at the link level.
- Weigh and metaweigh!!
- Summary needs to collapse, extend, frontline, and weigh (preferably in that order)
- No new arguments after first summary, unless it's weighing.
- If you decide to run any sort of progressive argumentation, try to do it well.
- I don't believe in paraphrasing or disclosure theory.
- Please be civil and kind - debate is a fun activity. If you make me laugh I'll boost your speaks (seriously).
- I don't need evidence until it is contested in round but if you do need to send it to me send it to anthara@g.ucla.edu
Oh and please don’t shake my hand :(
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at least a somewhat conversational speed. NOTE: I am fine with spreading if you share your speech docs with me before every speech where you plan to spread.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice!! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
hi! I'm a college student who grew up on the world schools circuit, and now debate BP @ college. email chains: abhiwadh@usc.edu
preferences:
tech > truth; i credit arguments that are well mechanized/warranted/explained/linked (whatever you like to call it idk)
link heavily
I'll accept theory so long as you warrant it well. All about that addressing inequality type stuff
weigh, collapse, and extend your points to be credited.
Spreading is okay just share your document and make sure I can understand what you're saying
Weighing > Argument quality > Presumption (neg on policy, 1st on harms)
Basic decorum is a bare minimum. Let's be productive
i'm probably a pretty standard tech judge but please check for my opinions on things that might be important to the way you debate (ie theory, ivis, speed, docs, tko, tricks, ks, etc.) it is long because i shouldn't have to say these things in round you should check for them if you do anything that has any chance of needing judge preference knowledge
I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of)
email cheriewang835@gmail.com. send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but at least send to me)
almost every default here can be changed if you warrant that. e.g. if you forget to extend something in summary but warrant why extensions don't matter during final, i will disregard the lack of a summary extension. however if you say something racist you will not change my mind about if being racist should be allowed.
IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.
conceded defense is sticky - if you don't frontline one of your contentions in second rebuttal don't go for it in summary. if ur first speaking u don't need to extend defense against a dropped contention. if second rebuttal drops one of the pieces of defense on a contention they do go for, i would like the first summary to explicitly extend the response but you could argue that you don't need it idc
PLEASE TIME SPEECHES cus i'm not going to. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over
things i like (order is prioritized):
- speech docs/disclosing
- bears trick
- early weighing/collapsing
- impact turns/defense
- polls trick
- cool arguments
- wolf in sheeps clothing trick
things i don't like (in no particular order):
-
reading progressive arguments poorly
-
most IVIs (read my section on IVIs if u plan to read one)
-
going too fast for me
-
signposting poorly.
-
being offensive
-
the liar's paradox (and most other paradoxes)
-
not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will dock speaks
tech>truth. i judge how i am directed to in round. my preferences will reflect in ur speaks but generally, read and do whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it
don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow.i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me.for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and that's being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.
be nice or get 25s.
SIGNPOST. i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact, they are all meaningless to me so i won't bother flowing them
u are extremely welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late) or via email. i am happy to answer questions about the decision/strategy/etc. i do not expect teams to always agree with me
random things
my 2 biggest pet peeves are 1) fake norm setting and 2) wasting my time.
PLEASE DO NOT pad your time by reading the same responses with different cards multiple times. instead do weighing or make analytics i don't care if they are bad, i would rather flow that than another card saying the same thing.
hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants are kinda racist.
if you read weighing and call it a prereq when it isn't actually one, i will not treat it like one.
i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)
i don't believe in TKOs or 30 speaks theory and probably won't waive that
pf substance stuff
second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing.
i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to. i really like being able to see strategy in every speech and largely decide speaks based on this.
i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.
warrant things
weigh things
extend things
IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF. please read impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact
love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a rebuttal with no strategy
SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST
trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now
u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.
trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things prior to talking about them for 4 minutes.
trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.
performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of it is one of my biggest pet peeves in debate and often actively harmful. please do not read trigger warning theory in front of me for no reason. please give good opt outs. if you are trivializing this issue i will still evaluate the round but i will tank your speaks.
IVIs
other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.
IVIs on bad ev or offensive behavior are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it, u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter (what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them).
the two scenarios i described are the only ones where it makes sense to me to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T.
i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of doing more performative theory while skirting RVIs. please do not do that. i will tank your speaks forever. i am not forgiving on this issue.
theory
i love judging theory but i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day (this does not refer to people who are new to reading theory all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you).
friv is great if you are chill and do a good job reading it.
i should never feel bad for your opponents if you initiate theory, especially friv. you should be the most polite person ever if you initiate theory. do not play dumb in cross fire. explain how to engage with the shell.
all parts of the shell + implication need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals.
going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!
im a big fan of os disclosure. down to evaluate marginal misdisclosure shells if you can do a good job reading it.
my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.
tricks
don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them
don't really like paradoxes. i think polls is funny. eval after 1ac and gcd are ok. i dont know that many tricks
i need to see them on the doc! if i missed them, i will be a lot less willing to evaluate tricks and very open to hearing reasons the way the trick was read is unfair and should disqualify it. don't hide them in the card but the tagline is ok
Ks
please talk to me in round. if you don't talk to me before round i will probably just not vote on it.
add me to the email chain: wangkatie16@gmail.com
Hi! i'm katie (she/her), i'm a second year in college. i did circuit ld for the majority of high school and a little bit of public forum in my senior year.
i'm more comfortable with judging policy and t/theory orientated debates, however if you do read a k or a phil heavy case make sure you explain it well.
speaker points start at 28 and fluctuate from there.
for pf:
you can spread but pls be coherent
make sure all arguments have a warrant
impact weighing>>>>>
anything that makes me laugh = +.1 speaker point
in general, don't stress, be nice, and have fun :)
Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo
General Notes:
-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com
-Clarity over speed
-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else
Argument-Specific Notes:
-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.
-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.
-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.
-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.
-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.
Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).
It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.
I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:
- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.
- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.
- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).
Argument preferences:
I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.
I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).
I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.
I am cool with policy arguments.
I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.
Speaks:
I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.
I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).
Contact info
mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com
anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com
I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.
LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).
PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.
Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.
Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.
Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.
Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.
Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.
PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Flow judge but not a super heavy tech judge.
I largely vote off of which links / warrants are still standing. Weighing / framework can be a tiebreaker if both sides have some access to impacts. I grant partial to access to impacts if the links have some attacks but weren't completely taken down. If an argument / issue has a lot of clash I tend not to weigh it as much.
If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?
Don't spread, I'm not going to use your speech doc. Some speed is fine but consider slowing down / emphasizing any crucial points so they don't get lost.
Please signpost– state the contention # and tagline you're addressing.
Not a big fan of theory or Ks, I don't think they're good arguments or what debate should be about. Obviously if there is some genuinely problematic issue feel free to run it but in 95% of rounds I probably wouldn't give the theory much weight. Best way I can explain it is you should believe in what you're saying is an actual important issue vs. just using theory as another argument to throw out there.
Hello, my name is Yi Yao and I am a parent judge with limited experience in competitive debate.
I value clarity of arguments over speed. Please try to avoid speed reading or spreading, which is a jargon I just learned; try to avoid jargons too because I may not understand them.
Assume I know nothing about the topic, try to educate me first and then persuade me to vote for your position. But don't present all the arguments you can possibly think of, focus on your best one or two arguments.
Make sure to let me know which is your strongest argument. Don't make me guess.
I expect you to track your own time and let me know if your opponent runs over.
I expect you to back up all of your statements with trustworthy evidence.
Please email your cases to yao.esq@live.com
Be respectful and cordial with each other. Have fun!
Yi Yao
Attorney
debated pf on the nat circuit from 2020-2024 underLeland YC and Leland LY
email chain: jeannineyu@g.ucla.edu
flow
tech>truth
How I evaluate:
- who is winning the weighing/framing?—I go to their case/other weighed lines of offense
- are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I look to the other case/lines of offense.
- are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I presume to evaluating like a lay judge (which team was more "convincing" lol) unless you tell me otherwise
Must Dos (PLEASE READ):
-signpost. please at the very least tell me when you are moving between contentions/links and going to another case/weighing. i have to know where to flow your responses!
-do full link chain extensions, I will NOT vote for shadow extensions. (this means you must re-explain uniqueness, link, internal link, impact in both summary and final focus). please see the case extensions on the bottom of this preflow if you need an example of how to extend case.
-weigh comparatively. breaking the weighing clash and winning case is the absolute easiest way to win my ballot and is what most rounds I judge come down to. my fav weighing mechs were prereqs, root cause, impact magnifiers, short circuits, timeframe metaweighing (i am a huge sucker for going for and weighing conceded turns/disads in summary) if you do impressive weighing/round vision i will give you highest speaks (~29.8-30)
-extend everything you want me to vote for in summary and FF (defense is not sticky) do NOT extend through ink, if your opponents do it just call them out, no need to respond to it
-2nd rebuttal must frontline
-pwease send docs as a google doc or as text in the email if possible. if u send docx i will need some extra time to convert. also in speed rounds pls wait for me to say i'm ready before you start
Progressive:
-i read 2 topical Ks in my senior year with a friend who is a much better K debater than me, i think i'm fine to evaluate Ks but a) at your own risk b) send me all docs since i am not super well versed on K lit
-can evaluate reasonable theory (although i would prefer not to have to judge a disclo or paraphrase round)
-don't read tricks i have no idea how to evaluate them
Other:
-spreading is chill, just send a doc in case. you must be coherent and read what's on the doc for me to flow it. if you only read off paper then no need to send a doc
-Average speaks 28.5-29.9. 30s if your round vision made the round really easy on the flow
-I'll flow responses that begin before the end of the speech time, anything after I will strike from the flow if the other team calls it out
-to minimize intervention, I only look at evidence if it's indicted in a speech or if anyone asks me to
-bring food for 30s
-don't be mean, rude, or discriminatory
you are completely free to politely post-round me. but remember, the point of any post-rounding in general should be to get feedback since the ballot will already be entered.
please ask if you have any questions! :))
for ld:
tldr: i judge like a pf flow judge.
i don't know any specific rules for this event or how decision making is supposed to work. in the past i've used a very pf-style metric for determining the winner for substance rounds:
- framing - i see your values and criterion stuff as just framing for what i should value in the round
- weighing - who is winning the weighing? i go to their advantage/da/cp/plan/whatever line of offense
- are they winning the offense? if yes AND it follows the winning framework then the round is over. otherwise, I look to other lines of offense
- are they winning the offense? if yes, the round is over. if not, i look for the place i'm most comfortable voting, and ultimately if there is no offense, i just become a lay judge and intervene (please don't make me get there)
other:
-I think I can evaluate Ks/theory/T but please read the pf section about them!
-I don't know how to evaluate phil, larp, tricks, and other ld only things. if it's not something that exists in some form in pf, i most definitely don't know how to evaluate. I'll still do my best to evaluate anything you present me though, just be warned.
-speed is fine, just send doc in case.