Georgetown Fall
2024 — NSDA Campus, DC/US
MS PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello,
As a judge, I am very particular about teams engaging each other fairly and thoroughly without being rude to each other. Fair and thorough engagements include making concessions when the arguments have been properly analysed and are logical and engaging in fair and broad-minded comparisons. This is to ensure that everyone has an equal chance in the room and that everyone is respectful towards the other.
Secondly, I am fully aware of the fact that speakers usually have a lot of material to cover in a very small time, but please make sure you do not excessively speed through your arguments. It is okay to speak fast but don't run through your speeches. To make it easy for your opponents and me to hear you clearly and understand you, I advise you to speak calmly and distinctly
Lastly, be conscious of what is expected of you in the debate round and try to fulfill them. If you make claims or assertions while speaking, justify them.
Best of luck!
If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks
General:
Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com
Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.
General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.
Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.
Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:
-
Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.
-
Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.
-
Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.
-
I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.
Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"
K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’
Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.
Hello, my name is Yiraldo Campos Perez and I am so excited to be judging today. A little bit about me, I have been involved in speech and debate for about the last 8 years in which I have been both a competitor and coach on both the high school and college level. While my main passion and love fall into the interpretation events, I have also attended nationals in platform events and have sprinkled debate events here and there over the course of my long involvement in this activity. I am currently a coach for Able2Shine and love getting the opportunity to see my students and other students, show off all their hard work, skills, and talent.
When it comes to judging competitors during tournaments, I truly stick to the golden rule when it comes to speaking. I know debate has a big history of trying to speak fast in order to get as many points across, but I truly don't think you should risk tone and delivery in order to attempt to cover more points. So for competitors, speaking at a pace that is both useful for you, but appropriate for me as a judge to hear your points, and appropriate enough for your competitor to hear and understand your points. At the end of the day, you would not want your competitor to speak so fast that you yourself couldn't understand their point.
This is supposed to be a fun activity, so please remember to always have fun and give it your all!
- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.
- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.
- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.
- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.
- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.
- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.
- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.
- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.
Closing Thoughts:
"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.
Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."
I participated in high level public forum debate on the national and New Mexico state circuit, so I am extremely familiar with what you competitors are going through.
Keep it civil and have fun pursuing pf.
As an ex-debater, I put a lot of emphasis regarding how the contestants are extending up their cases. I expect all the points raised by each team is supported by verifiable evidences.I look for multiple supporting arguments in favor of their position and how the participants are bringing those arguments together in summation. Don't extend a lot of arguments into your summary and final focus, I'd rather see three or four fleshed out. Also, I pay close attention to crossfire round. That round plays a big part for me in process of being convinced about.
As a high school student experienced in congressional debate, I am looking for the following:
1. Clarity: Make sure your arguments are well-structured and easy to follow. I appreciate debaters who signpost and explain the logic behind their points and guide me through their case step by step, as I am not super familiar with the format of PF.
2. Weighing: I look for clear and consistent weighing in your argumentation. This means showing why your arguments matter more in the context of the round and explaining the impacts of each contention. Comparative analysis between arguments is crucial.
3. Presentation: Confidence, tone, and articulation are key. While content is king, a polished delivery enhances the effectiveness of your case.
I am looking forward to seeing a lively debate!
I am a flay judge please signpost please weigh I am truth over tech
If you are not organized in your speeches I will call you out on it in my RFD
Parent judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.
- Parent Judge, your job is to convince ME why you have won, think as if you're presenting to a person who has no idea about the topic
- Don't speak too fast. Spreading or reading too fast will cost you, might not catch arguments on the flow
- Eye contacts and body languages are also important
- No arguments based on politics
Voting Issues
- Direct clashes between arguments
- Weighing the two arguments
I cannot stress this enough, but please speak slowly and make sure to reiterate your points.
Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!
I prioritize students with a much structural speech and no one-liner arguments. A peaceful yet competitive debate with clear analysis of their points and arguments are what I hope in a debate round. I prefer a student who did their homework on what points should be bring and what not, a deeper analysis will be great even if it's a small points. And although I valued matters more than manners, manners does make a speech valuable.
Basis Independent McLean '24, UC Irvine '28 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)
About Me: Debated for 3 years locally as Basis Independent McLean Z[J] and 1 year nationally as Basis Independent McLean [J]R. I was ok at both. Now I go to UC Irvine where I'm double majoring in Political Science and Mechanical Engineering.
Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend Connor Chun:
"I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer..."
TLDR: Typical Tech > Truth judge. Good with speed, please send docs to shaunjones247@gmail.com and novacados0@gmail.com.
Please warrant things, especially in the backhalf. Preflowing before round is preferred so we can start the round asap. Anything bigoted gets a calm L20 and a report to tab. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad. Debate is a game, yall should be enjoying yourselves and having fun. Please just refer to me as Shaun, not judge. Please tell me if there is anything I can do to accommodate you in your round!
Not a fan of the oldheads who proclaim "PF is not policy-lite!!!" and "Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!" . To say that an entire event is getting ruined because people are innovating away from your personal debate style of the mid to late 20th century is... incredibly self-centered... to say the least.
Prefs:
Your best bet with me is just high speed tech substance debate. Its what I loved doing in highschool and I enjoy judging high-paced, super technical rounds. That being said, I can evaluate theory, K (both T and non-T), and basically anything else. I'm open to judging weird stuff like phil, high theory and skep, but you need to slow down in the backhalf and warrant things out so I can properly evaluate it. If you do read anything like phil or high theory, I think its cool you've spent the time to learn it and I'll try my hardest to make sure your efforts arent wasted. Trix are funny. You can read them if I'm judging and I'll eval it.
Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit (WACFL): Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. I would be inclined to drop you if you read disclosure against teams that you know don't have an opencaselist. Substance only unless both teams agree to do a prog round. I'm also not allowed to disclose rfd after round - you'll have to wait in anxiety. Please set up an email chain though; WACFL rounds run super late because it takes years for teams to call for individual cards, so setting up an email chain before round will make things much smoother.
Content Warnings:
Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics (sexual violence, self-harm) in the form of an anonymous opt out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest.
Prep Time:
pls track your own prep time, i'm too lazy. i trust u wont lie to me. Flex prep is fine.
Evidence:
Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards
Add me on the email chain. If youre going fast send a carded doc so I can follow along and so that we don't waste time calling for evidence. If you don't send a carded doc before the speech please at least send one afterwards - be wary that I'm gonna let the other team steal prep in this case. I have an extremely low bar when it comes to responses that indict evidence from Medium. If your case has evidence from Medium it better a) be from a real human being and b) have sufficient warranting for what you're reading in case.
I don't really care about clipping unless its super egregious e.g. a team deliberately highlights a part of the card that has a major implication/impact, doesnt read it, doesnt mark the doc, then collapses on that arg using that highlighted part in the extension. Other than that, I'm not gonna drop a team because they forgot to rehighlight cards after cutting down case.
I'm probably not a great judge for evidence challenges. To win one you would have to prove that a) a team deliberately cut a card to completely misrepresent what its saying and/or b) fabricated evidence. Doing either of these things is quite difficult, so you're better off just pointing out their horrible evidence ethics and it casts alot of doubt on them on my end.
Speeches:
Please signpost. I'm good with speed and I'll clear you if needed. I stop flowing 5 seconds over time.
Cross:
I dont pay attention during cross. As a result, nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for 1 min of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.
2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've basically lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new DA's. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it shouldve been in constructive.
Summary:
No new evidence. (Unless its to frontline your own case in first summary)
Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it again. I won't flow it. I should be able to draw a line from the 2AC to the 2AR.
Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, ur good. If I don't hear an extension ur doomed lowkey. U should also collapse in summary, its a good idea. This also applies to turns: you have to extend UQ, the Link turn itself, and an impact or else I can only eval it as defense.
A note about turns:
Don't extend UQ? I would be hesitant to vote on it. Why? Reading your own UQ and extending a turn means that all I have to do is vote on a risk of your impact happening. Don't extend the turn itself? Self-explanatory. Don't extend an impact? I can't evaluate it as offense absent some implications that affect diff areas of case. Impact turns are cool. Read them.
Weighing is very very very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" - that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs I default to timeframe + magnitude.
My personal thoughts on probability weighing: The only probability weighing that I will buy is off an implication of a non-unique, saying that the link did trigger at some point but the impact never happened. If the other team can't frontline this properly and you do probability weighing, I'd buy it as long as its actually comparative to your case. The probability weighing that I would never buy is the blippy, unwarranted, new in 1st final weighing that just says "nuclear war has never actually happened before yap yap yap we outweigh" - thats just new defense you never read in rebuttal. Debate is a simulation - even if the argument is space col, if its conceded it has 100% probability and if weighed properly I will vote on it.
Final Focus:
Final should mirror summary. If the 2AR makes new responses not present in the 1AR then the 2NR can make frontlines that wouldve been in the 1NR had they never went new in first final. I'd also be inclined to give them a 5 second grace period bc they have to frontline something new. I will try to protect 1st Final Focus - meaning that I will be heavily scrutinizing 2nd final to make sure everything said there was actually in summary.
Framing
I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" absent warranting as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up. Nuclear war doesn't link into SV framing from a technical or truth perspective. This won't factor into my decision because that would be intervening but I will a) have a very low bar for responses against it and b) would not like voting off of it. I also don't buy prefiat weighing off of a discourse argument if its not warranted.
Theory:
I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. If theres no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices ('obviously' means their record is on the entries page and its all PF-Novice division). If you're in varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we dont know how to respond" are not responses at all.
I default to reasonability because i can't just make up an interp if im not competing in the round so PLEASE if you're arguing against disclo/paraphrase/trigger warning you HAVE to give me a counter interp or else i err against you. Personally, I err against friv theory so if you want me to vote on a friv shell just read a CI. Just read a counter interp, it greatly increases your chances of winning.
I (might) pursue law in the future, so spirit of the interp is not something I'm gonna buy. What the interp says is whats being debated, you can't change that. Make sure your interps are as specific as possible so noone can exploit them.
If you are from a large school (>5 unique entries on your school's disclo page) and read small schools in response to the shell I'm tanking your speaks even if you win the argument. (My school has had 1 national circuit team ever and we still disclosed every single round we did that year - even locals). Just disclose, its not that hard.
IVI's are weird but if you read one and win it ill eval it.
K's:
I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. Never ran them when I competed so please warrant things out for me to understand. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing either of those is kinda weird.
Presumption:
I generally presume aff, if the neg cant prove why doing the aff is bad then I see no reason why we shouldnt at least try doing the aff.
Speaks:
I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing I like) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. If you go all in on a turn and it works in your favor you're guaranteed a 29.5 at minimum.
Postrounding:
You can, and should, postround me. Postrounding helps me as a judge improve in the future, and gives you, the competitor, a better understanding of how I voted and how to handle similar situations in the future rounds.
Fun Stuff:
If both teams agree, we can do a lay round and everyone gets 30s. Will vote off of vibes.
Any reference to the English football club Tottenham Hotspur that makes me laugh will be +0.25 speaks (COYS!)
If you truly believe that a team has no possible path to the ballot after a summary speech, you can call a TKO. If you're right, everyone in the round gets 30s. If you're wrong, its an L25 for you.
Good luck, have fun, and do your best!
I am a parent judge.
I would prefer that you speak slowly and understandably.
Please weigh and use good evidence ethics throughout the round.
I will judge based on how well each team argued and defended their point.
Please include me in your case /evidence distribution emails at kapooa01@gmail.com
Hi, I am a parent judge and have been judging PF for two years. In general, do not speak too fast and speak clearly. Also, try to limit the use of technical terms when making your arguments. Good luck!
Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.
Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.
As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.
I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.
I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.
I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.
I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.
Austin Kelachukwu.
email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com
I am currently a JV PF Debater for Lakeland.
A little bit about me as a judge:
- I'm a flow judge, meaning that I can handle speed and understand debate theory and terminology.
- I listen but don't flow crossfire or use cross in my final considerations. This means that you should reference what happened in cross in your following speech otherwise I can't use it.
- Offtime roadmaps and signposting are greatly helpful. I don't record it in my flow but it helps me know what direction you'll be going with your points and what to expect next.
- You should always try to extend your arguments throughout your case as the debate progresses, but don't forget to effectively attack the opponent's arguments. Also, don't be afraid to collapse if needed.
- I'm big on framework and weighing. They tell your judge how to view the argument and directly compare the arguments presented, respectively. If no framework is introduced, I will default to utilitarianism.
- I always expect everyone to be respectful, mean or personal attacks are not allowed.
Hello,
My name is Rajiv Kumar and I am a LAMDL (urban debate) alumni. I was a varsity debater at Bravo Medical Magnet High School, and now debate in NPDA and NFA-LD at UC San Diego. I also have acquired experience in speech, mostly in interp events.
Please put me on the chain (if there is one): myemail1518q82@gmail.com
Now that I am in the judging position, I will give a few insights into how I view debates.
Some quick notes:
1. Be nice. In other words, be mature, and good people.
2. Have fun! :)
3. I will not allow conflicts that can put at risk the debate environment such as comments/arguments that can hurt other debaters and others in general, this includes and is not limited to racism, sexism, etc.
Note for LD: My views are similar to policy, but specifically for y'all: No trix please, reverse voters might make my head hurt, and good explanations are a must, especially as I probably lack deep topic knowledge- shadow extensions are not the best.
Some of my debate background (if that's important to you):I debated throughout high school, and I was mostly a K-Aff/K debater. If I didn't go for the K, I went for T (either topicality or theory). I have the most experience with settler colonialism, capitalism, and indigenous feminism type arguments. I have heard a bit of pomo arguments, but these will need more explaining to get my ballot. More on some specific sections will be below :).
Case (General)- Unavoidable. If you're aff, don't lose case, it can cost you the ballot. I find that in most cases winning that your aff outweighs can save you from a few defensive neg arguments. Yet, this depends on how your aff interacts with the neg arguments. For the neg, this is where it can get fun if you're losing your off-case positions. Don't underestimate the case to focus on your off-cases. Always look for a way to poke holes in the aff case. It will be quite hard for me to not look at case unless you win another flow.
Policy Affs:I didn't utilize these as often, but they can be fun. I rather you have two solid advantages than five that make no sense, though.
K-Affs:This is where I am most comfortable. I read a K-Aff in my last two years of high school debate and continue to read them in college. For the aff: Be prepared for T-FW and the Cap K, and explain your solvency. If I don't understand your solvency the more I am inclined to vote neg. I do enjoy performance affs, and non-traditional affs as well. While topic affs are easier for me to judge, I will evaluate a "non-topical" aff. Always make the aff o/w argument, because in most cases it does and it gets you out of a lot of negative offense, but you must know how to utilize this argument and where. For the neg: You can win on T-FW- but I think that it's not the only way to win against a K-Aff. I suggest to also make vagueness and presumption arguments on case, I will vote on them. I also like to hear more creative ways of beating a K-Aff (this can include theory, more in-depth K's, counter-performances, etc.)
DA/CP-I don't have much experience here, as I stated before I debated mostly the K on both sides. But, I will say that to win using this strategy, it's best to have the CP + DA so that there is a clear net benefit. For the neg- If you're going just for the DA, focus more on the link and the impact, as that's where I am more likely to vote. Uniqueness questions can be a voter, but it's usually not likely. Win that there is a link and that your impact o/w and you should be good. For the aff: Either straight turn the DA or at best win the link turn. You can also convince me on a no link, but remember that n/l is mostly just defensive, don't rely solely on that argument. For CP's: It's harder to win here if you don't have a DA, I find permutations quite convincing, but you can win. Have some relative advantage to the CP and win that it o/w. I think that winning theory on the permutation is fun. For the aff: Make permutations. Most of the time the CP is not that distinct from the aff/ has no net benefit enough to outweigh the aff. This is why you have to prove your aff is better and not lose case.
T-I usually went for T if I didn't go for the K. We meet arguments I think are mostly defensive, and I prefer counter interpretations. I usually use a competing interpretations lens, but I can be persuaded to use reasonability. Violation I think is a must, and the standards and voters should always be there. While I don't mind a short shell, make sure to explain the standards and voters in the extensions of the T. This is especially true if the T becomes the 2NR, I need to know why the aff violates and what that does to the debate space. For theory specifically: I will listen to aspec in the 1NC shell, but please don't extend it or much less go for it, unless the aff just clean drops it, I just don't find it persuasive. Most other specs I'm fine with and will vote on. I will vote on theory if you explain it well. Please don't pull tricks or rvi's, if you had that on mind, I will not vote on them.
K-Again, I am more comfortable in these debates. I don't think that you need to win all parts of the kritik to win it, but you definitely want to win at least a link to have some relative offense. Yet, I can also be persuaded to just vote on the alternative alone, if you know how to handle that debate, because this type of approach can implode on you if not done correctly. I do think that you have to answer framework though, because I need to know how to weigh the aff and the K. Give me reasons to prefer your interp. Remember to explain your alternative well, and impact framing because that can be a winning ballot paired with a decent link. On that note, I prefer links that are specific to the context of the aff, but some "general" links can be made into specific links if you are smart and pull lines from the aff's evidence. For the aff specifically: Utilize perms to the best of your ability. This is the easiest way to beat the K. Also pair it with at least a link turn and fw. But, I would prefer you have more than that to be able to have a cleaner win against a K. Disclaimer: While I do have some general ideas and am more knowledgeable in the set col and cap K debate, I don't know all of the literature available, so don't fall short on explanations. This is especially true for pomo literature because it can get confusing very quickly.
Speed:I am okay with it (just be clear) unless your opponents are not. Just be respectful of your opponents and you should be okay. I will call CLEAR if necessary.
Speech:do you. I will time and count you down if the event requires it and I'll also give you hand signals.
Don't worry too much if it's your first debate, I am a debater like you, so don't worry, I know what it's like.
If you have any questions before the round you can contact me at myemail1518q82@gmail.com
You can also use that email to ask questions if you have any after the round as well :).
Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.
My name is YiChuan Li (Bodie). I debated for over 4 years in both CNDC and PF formats. I like speeches that have arguments that are closely linked and supported with evidence. I really like it when debaters signposts at the beginning of their speeches which makes understanding their arguments easier for me as a judge.
As a lay judge with experience in several tournaments, I value clear, concise, and well-structured arguments. I assess debates based on content, presentation, preparation, strong rebuttals, and solid research. Speak at a comfortable pace, use clear language, and be respectful of opposing views. Most importantly, learn, grow, and have fun!
✓ I have been judging for over twelve months, and I have judges several debate tournaments of different formats ranging from PF to LD, CX, Congress, speech.... I have judged debates in not less than twenty different tournaments.
✓ I allow debaters to expressly and effectively communicate their arguments while prioritizing clarity over speed for the sake of judge's thorough assessment and of course their opponents' understanding. Jargon or technical language could be permitted only when used to communicate the subject area of the debate.
✓ I do judge with my note and pen readily available beside me so as to take note of important or key arguments including rebuttals and summaries.
✓ I prioritize effective delivery of arguments. Any intelligent style may be employed by debaters but within the scope/ guidelines of each debate format.
✓ In assessing a debate, I consider the articulation of arguments, polite demeanor especially during cross-examination, the content of the arguments if it resonate with the resolution, however, all debate activities must to specific to the debate format of that moment.
✓ I could describe the argument I found most persuasive in my previous debate rounds in this manner, the arguments were constructive, arguments delivery was audible and clear, there was a good teamwork between the side of the debate, educative and friendly demeanor was maintained throughout the debate round, the arguments were supported with claims and evidences, and of course the team won my vote.
✓ Aggressive and cutting opponents' responses during cross-examination are very unnecessary, maintaining educative, competitive and friendly demeanor pays off. However, I look forward to constructive arguments, intelligent and audible delivery of speech, claims with evidences to support arguments, persuasive counterarguments and timeliness.
Best regards.
Jesutofunmi Joshua OGUNNIRAN
Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir . I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.
Within a large time frame, i have gathered experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.
As a judge, I enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they engage the opponent's arguments while making their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge adjudicate the debate.
I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.
When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy it when they stick to their assigned tasks.
I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment, and other techniques used in debate.
I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e. when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build a partner’s case, and explain why they won.
I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after the stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.
I have been enrolled in Public Forum Debate for a quite a bit of time:)
It will be great if you guys can share me your cases in advance and please put me on the email chain: p.jennifer0515@gmail.com
I have a pretty good understanding on this topic, but still don't assume that I will know what you are talking about. Make sure to EXPLAIN WHY. Do not just say something and move on. I would not buy that if you don't explain (link is NECESSARY).
I am fine with speed (ofc not too too fast) but I prioritize clarity and persuasiveness.
I will flow everything you say in the round except cross-fire. Whatever you say in the cross-fire, I won't buy it unless you bring it up in your speech.
Tech > Truth
Give me evidence or else I won't buy it although it may be true. Always have an evidence to prove your arguments. (ofc the evidence better be real and proper)
Give me off-time road map to keep things organized and make sure to tell me what you are talking about when moving onto different parts. (ex. "Now moving onto reconstruction...)
PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH!!!
I prioritize weighing in the rounds, but make sure you do it properly. I won't buy weighings that is just a restatement of your own points or a summary of yours and your opponents. GIVE ME THE COMPARISON and use the weighing mechanisms.
When giving me cards for weighing or extending, don't just refer to the card only by the author name but give me the exact evidence (or part of it).
ALWAYS be polite and kind in the rounds and good luck!
Hello, my name is Mascot Serg. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.
Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).
As an Adjudicator, I prioritize healthy engagements in debate rooms. I always encourage speakers to always respect other speakers when debating. I also take equity issues very important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.
Also, I expect that everyone should read the judging and speaking manual of tournaments, to know what is expected of them, so that everyone can act accordingly. This makes basic things like role fulfilment, making good arguments and having solid arguments to be easily achieved.
I also value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.
I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.
I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.
Since it's an online tournament, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.
***For Lex: I have no knowledge of the topic, do with that what you will***
If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)
Freshman @ Columbia, previous PF captain @ Bronx Science.
dmsmirnova1@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)
Show up at check-in time! If you ask me for time to preflow I'll let you do it but it's annoying.
If you don't cut your cards and you're at a nat, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).
I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc (I will flow off docs when you are too fast). Honestly in general send docs if you're speaking a bit fast because sometimes I'll miss something the first time and it's nice to have an email chain to fall back on. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.
General
I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.
I've been called a fake tech before and I prolly am :) sorry! I can eval prog but I don't love substance tech (I can obviously still eval it though but the faster you are the less likely I am to make the right decision).
If you are someone who spreads, PLEASE slow down in the backhalf. If you're spreading your extension so you can get through it as fast as possible, you can't be mad when I don't understand your link. The point of summary and final is to narrow the scope of the round so please do that. Big picture analysis is great and makes my decision so much easier -- tell me why you win and they lose.
Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out. Ultimately, I vote for whatever wins on the flow but I won't always be happy about it, so use my biases to your advantage.
Weigh, weigh, weigh! Clean offense/link + weighing is the way to win me over, especially if your impact isn't as big/you only access part of your impact. Metaweighing is great, do it (I'm a big fan of prob>mag metaweighing).
I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.
I don't love spark and I'm pretty hesitant to vote on climate change impacts because I believe it's generally a nonunique impact. With CC, explain your specific solvency -- don't just say x policy is gonna solve all the climate change/air pollution deaths worldwide bc that's just not true. I like SV and I ran it a lot when I was a debater!
Ks
I'm most familiar with non-T identity Ks (fem, asian, queer), cap and sec. I read non-T fem on the circuit. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.
Theory
I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. With that being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me". Moreover, my favorite shells impact to safety/accessibility as I believe it's a fundamental prereq to being in the round in the first place which is where the impacts of education come from.
If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments!).
Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)
Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev
Policy/LD
I was a PF debater in high school. A PF debater who ran a K, but a PF debater nonetheless. Thus, all the things about techy PF apply here, especially about slowing down and narrowing the scope of the round. Tell me what's going on in the round and why you win, don't assume I'll be able to tell myself if your opponents made a massive fumble/are being abusive/etc.
Other things
Dont be rude or make the round unsafe
If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.
I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.
Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene
Hello,
I have decent judging experience. I'd like to share my judging preferences:
1. Clarity and Conciseness: - I kindly request that you articulate your arguments clearly and directly. While I'm open to a faster pace of speech, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from spreading. If you do speak faster than conversational, please ensure that you slow down at crucial points you'd like me to follow closely.
2. Robust Argumentation: - I value well-structured arguments that are the focal point of your presentation. Please present your case with clear, concise points, and support them with relevant details and evidence. Summarizing your key points at the end would be greatly appreciated.
In essence, I encourage a respectful and enjoyable debating environment. Let's have a constructive and engaging debate together. Have fun!
Looking forward to the debate.
Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.
1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:
Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.
2. Fairness and Impartiality:
I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.
3. Transparency:
I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.
4. Feedback Mechanism:
I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.
5. Ethical Considerations:
I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.
6. Continuous Improvement:
Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.
Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.
Email: anagubbi@gmail.com
I used to debate LD in high school and now do CX in college. I am familiar with both but also have experience judging PF, Extemp and Interp
I don't have any personal preferences when it comes to debate. I judge purely based on what happens in the round so do you. If you have an questions, comments or concerns feel free to reach out
I'm a fourth year university student at SFU studying Health Science.
Generally, I'm open to every argument, but please (please!!) keep your delivery slow and clear. It's more important to have quality evidence than quantity of evidence. Please do not be rude or cheat. At the end of it, I vote based on the flow and the debate round.
Feel free to contact me after the round if you need more feedback. You can reach me at Jasminewxb01@gmail.com.
(Debaters better send your cases to the email in advance :) )
I have judged several debate rounds before. Parent judge.
Speak at a reasonable pace and create logical arguments and impacts.
Please be respectful and don't interrupt you opponents.
Please share case and speech docs to shanyang2013@gmail.com
I look forward to an exciting and insightful debate.
-
Treat me like a flay judge
-
Add me to the email chain clarayoo25@gmail.com
-
Speed is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
-
I don't flow cross. If you want me to flow it say it in your speech
-
Anything not frontlined in second rebuttal is considered dropped
-
Collapse!!
-
Everything in ff should be extended in summary
-
When you and your opponent provide opposite warranting, give me a reason why I should prefer yours
-
Please no theory or Kritiks
-
WEIGH!!! Tell me why I should prefer your weighing over your opponent's
-
Extra 0.1 speaks if you mention spiderman in your speech
-
Be nice. Have fun guys!!