Mid America Cup
2024 — Online, IA/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello my name is Yaser Abudagga and I am an aerospace engineer project manager. I enjoy debate because I feel as though it is a very good educational activity for children. My son is a part of the Iowa City West debate team, and he really enjoys it. I have no preference on any arguments, however please be respectful during crossfire and in general.
Please speak slowly because as I am a lay judge, make sure you speak loud so i can hear you, please time your own prep and cases, as well as cross, please do not talk over each other and take turns, please do not use any of the jargon, please define things that you can.
I am a parent Judge. Just a few notes: 1. Time yourselves and all your talking points should be made within the time. 2. Talk slowly as I need to be able to hear you. 3. I value crossfire less than others, so feel free to bring up whatever you think you should.
nicholas.borgmeyer@palmbeachschools.org
Tech > Truth
Progressive arguments are fine, but err on the side of over explanation for voting issues
Extend everything
Cross is binding
I have more experience judging substance
I am a (supposedly) smart lay judge with a PhD in molecular biology. Please speak on the slower side, and be friendly!
I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge. That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential. If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say. I also believe that clarity is important. Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent. In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.
- I am new to judging (have only done it once before)
- I am a parent/lay judge
- Please speak at a conversational speed!!
- Truth/Tech
- Please send me your constructive before the round at Carrie.Carman@verizon.net
- Me kid helped me write this
- Good Luck!
I am a lay parent judge. Please talk clearly and slowly. I will try to follow along each argument, but whoever has the clearest overall narrative is who I will vote for. Also be polite to each other.
My name is Colin Coulter and the 24-25 school year is my second year judging debate. I have a broad background in public speaking, delivering and listening to dozens of speeches with formal panels, boards, councils, subcommittees, and other bodies over the past 20 years. I try to follow the NSDA's judging guidelines found here: Judge Training | National Speech & Debate Association (speechanddebate.org).
Notes on specific events:
Public Forum:
I am most convinced by the execution of traditional debate skills. While I will entertain long debates about frameworks and weighing, I am judging public forum because I would like to hear arguments, with warrants and impacts, about the resolution and the resolution-based arguments in the round.
I believe that the foundation of debate is reasonable arguments supported by evidence. I appreciate when debaters show me that they have actually read their own original citations. I enjoy debates where I catch myself thinking "they really know what they are talking about" in response to a cross-ex question. Show me that you understand the citations! Please do not gish-gallop me with a long list of poorly-cited sources. Please absolutely avoid giving me the impression that you failed to read the original citation before you clipped the card from the Champion Brief.
I need to be able to track your arguments if I'm going to give you credit for them. Signposting is essential in verbal speech, and I do not keep a rigorous flow. As it says in the video, an argument is not established without at least a warrant and impact, and arguments are given more weight when opponents fail to respond to them. Effective rebuttals are as important as strong arguments.
Dramatic Interpretation: While interpretive events are judged to the best of my ability on their cutting, blocking, and characterization, I believe that depictions of violence against children are inappropriate in much that same manner that scatological or pornographic depictions would be inappropriate.
Using mental illness in your piece is likely problematic. Mental illness is a disability and to constantly portray mentally ill people as violent for points at NSDA events is essentially Mental Illness Minstrel Show. Ask yourself this question: "If my character's behavior was attributed to race or sexual orientation instead of a disability like mental illness, would I still perform the speech?"
Good luck this season!
Sriman Dooshety - Freshman at Creighton University
Ex Millard North PF Debater - competed multiple times at State, Nats, and TOC, the usual bizz (plenty of experience)
How I Evaluate a Round:
I'm generally tech over truth, however, I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implications.
Side Note:
Run progressive arguments/theories at your own risk. I prefer substance tbh, but I am totally willing to listen if everything is clearly explained and brought into the debate at an appropriate time. I do believe theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. Now I'm be open to arguments for why/why not something is friv, but that doesn't mean to run smth stupid like shoe theory in front of me and expect me to buy an argument for why it's not frivolous.
Preferences in terms of what's going on in the round:
* Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round because it makes evidence exchange faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain-sriman.dooshety@gmail.com
* I appreciate off-time roadmaps and signposting, but they don't need to be super elaborate.
* I allow speakers a 5-second grace period after the time is up to finish their speeches. This time is given to you to FINISH YOUR SPEECH, not to introduce new arguments or responses.
Evidence: Evidence Ethics is very important to me. Power tagging or mis cutting cards are grounds for me to drop the argument. Multiple instances usually are enough for me to drop the contention. If you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name).
Cross: I don't flow cross, but if you really want to bring something from cross mention it in your speech. You should prioritize cross on clearing up questions you have for your understanding.
Prep: Each team has 3 minutes of prep and I will be keeping time. You must take prep time if you are reading evidence. You should also have all your evidence cut and ready to send over so I don't care if you prep while your opponent is looking for their evidence to send.
Speed: Generally I will be fine with whatever as long as I can understand you and flow, however, if I can't understand what you are saying then I won't be able to flow which only hurts you in the round.
Rebuttal: First rebuttal should attack their opponent's case fully and can do some weighing if they have time, no need to extend the case. The second rebuttal should frontline by interacting with any offense read in the first rebuttal. Both first and second should go ahead and start the weighing debate (if a team forgets to respond to the weighing done here, the rest of the round gets much easier).
Summary: Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Make sure that you weigh your impacts against your opponents. Weighing is the strongest way for me to vote on your argument. At the end of the round, I want to see clear voting points that have been pulled through consistently. Easiest way to do this is by listing the voters and explaining to me why you win them. Yourweighing should also be comparative, not just restating your impacts and saying you outweigh but linking it to some sort of mechanism and giving a comparison between different impacts. Having prereqs and link-ins are a very simple and efficient way of doing this. Who knows maybe I'll bump your speaks if you do this...
Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary speech. By this speech I should understand the round story and narrative that your team is trying to tell me. By understanding your strategy, it will make it much easier to evaluate what's on the flow. Be sure to tell me why you're winning!
Most Importantly: Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
Any questions or concerns please feel free to ask me or you can reach me at sriman.dooshety@gmail.com
overall:
i don't know the topic at all. don't expect me to know something unless you've given me the context for it. please make debate a safe and educational space!! don't be sexist/ableist/racist/homophobic/etc, respect pronouns, and use appropriate content warnings. email me (lauriceduan@utexas.edu) if you ever feel unsafe in round. also upon further reflection, i think i may be more of a flay judge than a flow judge - take that as you will.
general pf info
- tech > truth
- pleaseeeeeeee come pre-flowed
- i'm okay with pf speed. i hate flowing off a speech doc. i'll do it if you really want me to, but i'll be annoyed about it
- i don't listen to cross at all. like not even in the slightest. if something important happens, it has to make its way into a speech. if both teams want to skip gcx, y'all can both get a minute of prep.
- time yourself and your opponents because i will not be! if there are disputes about time, y'all will have to figure it out
- second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments, or it's conceded
- defense is NOT sticky
- offense needs to be extended through summary and ff for me to evaluate it. if your opponents don't, call them out!! i don't want to do that work for you. please extend. i beg.
- weighing needs to be in summary, but it can start even earlier. i won't look at new weighing in ff
- please extend evid by content and not author names. i don't flow author names (sorry)
- warranted claims > evidence with no warrants
technical pf info
- i presume neg for policy resolutions and first speaking team for on balance resolutions. if you want me to presume differently, just tell me why!
- i will almost always disclose unless the tournament tells me not to
- don't say you're conceding the delink to kick out of the turn. tell me what the delink is and how that gets you out of turns.
- i won't call for evidence unless it's the most important arg in the round. i think it's interventionist, but if y'all want me to intervene, i will. just don't have bad evid ethics!!
- i try to give high speaks (think 28.7+) because i think people who don't are pretentious. lowest i go is 27 - obviously that changes if you were rude or problematic
progressive
- i can sorta evaluate basic theory shells (disclosure, paraphrasing, tw, etc.) - run at your own risk
- default to competing interps/counter interps > reasonability and no rvis, unless you tell me otherwise
- if you think you have a well-warranted progressive argument and want to read it, do what you want! i will do my best to follow along, just be patient with me :( i don't trust my ability to evaluate Ks, tricks, etc.
- i think tw are helpful, and i'd rather be safe than sorry. if you're ever triggered in a round, do not hesitate to tell me to stop the round, we can figure it out from there.
ld
- i truly don't know anything. we're in for a ride if i'm your ld judge because i have only debated ONE ROUND of ld
- treat me as a lay judge. i'm sorry in advance.
- if you feel miserable with me as your judge, just know I feel more miserable being your judge
- i don't know the topic, speech times, speaking order, norms, etc. DO THE WORK FOR ME, SIGN POST, AND GIVE ME EASY VOTERS
- open to you teaching me new things about ld that i might not know before or after round, but please don't be condescending
- i'm generally okay with post-rounding. if you disagree with my decision and want to talk to me about it, go for it. but if i make a wrong decision, it's probably slightly on you given the amount of warnings i gave above & you can convince me that i made the wrong decision, but i can't change the ballot. all that will happen is you will still have lost, and i will feel bad.
happy debating and good luck!! have fun out there :)
I am a new parent judge. Please speak clearly and slow enough that I can understand. I will not say my decision in the round; I will put it in tabroom after. Thank you!
I have been a PF coach for 20+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.
1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.
2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.
3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.
4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF
5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.
6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.
7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.
I am a new and lay judge.
· 1. Please speak clearly and slowly. I won’t vote for you if I cannot write and take note of your arguments and understand what you are saying.
· 2. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence and strong analytical explanations. Please "signpost" in your speeches and go in a logical order.
· 3. Respect each other.
I will flow as much as I can. Tell me why I should vote for you. At the end of the round, I will vote for the side that is more persuasive.
Be slow. Be clear. Be persuasive. Be kind. Debate is a fun experience. Win or lose, enjoy it.
Aanya Ghosh
You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/
PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible
General
I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD.
I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.
I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep. I don't care how you share evidence.
The email chain should be formatted as follows:
Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]
Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Not evaluating anything that occurred out-of-round besides disclosure. I will listen to CX.
I don't care if you tag-team/open/ CX or use flex prep.
Any defaults I do have (would like to think I don't have any) can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made.
I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.
New 2NR evidence: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to.
PF
You need to share all evidence/cases BEFORE your speeches with me (and each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share - I have no preference
I would STRONGLY prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations/the card format in the speech doc when paraphrasing.
I care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot. Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly.
If one team is reading properly cited evidence and the other is not, I will be very sympathetic if that team points this out and makes it a reason to drop the other team for ev ethics reasons (but it needs to be a complete argument)
If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).
I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.
Policy
Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.
Kritik
I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.
Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.
Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.
Philosophy
I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".
Determinism is one of my favorite arguments.
Theory
I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.
For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).
T
Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.
Tricks
I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.
Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.
Speaks
I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.
Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways
Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):
- Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
- Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
- Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
- Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs- 1 try each
- Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution- 1 guess per person
- I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
- Beat me at Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
- W references in your speech (2hollis, Nettspend, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)
Lay judge, this is the first tournament I'm judging. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.
Hello, my name is Calvin. I debated on the national circuit frequently during high school, and have been involved in PF since 6th grade. I'm now a first-year student at Drake University majoring in Law, Politics, and society on a prelaw track. I am also an assistant coach at Roosevelt.
Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com
When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites (Yes, even during crossfire).
Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.
TLDR: I am a tech judge.
Judging Philosophy
I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. This means i will enter the round as if i have 0 topic knowledge, and will evaluate anything I can understand. If your opponents say the sky is green and you drop it, the sky is green.
I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.
Defence is not sticky.
Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.
Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO.
Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.
How to win my ballot
SIGNPOST pls bro im begging
Clarity>speed
Collapsing is important if you want to avoid judge intervention. It can be extremely difficult if not impossible to weigh 3+ pieces of offense in 2 minutes.
I won't vote on crossfire, but that doesn't excuse being rude. You can be aggressive in cross, but please treat your opponents with respect.
If something important happens in cross, bring it up in the next speech or I won't flow it.
One well-warranted analytic is better than two blippy pieces of evidence
Good COMPARATIVE weighing will probably win you the debate.
Make your evidence comparison more than just "we postdate" why does postdating matter? Get creative with it.
Implicate your responses.
Efficient evidence exchanges facilitate a faster debate, fair competition, and a less annoyed judge.
Preflow before I show up.
Kritiks
I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space and are highly educational when they are run well. I am somewhat inexperienced in evaluating these so please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.
Theory
Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.
I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?
Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.
Making the round less messy is as simple as collapsing on a standard, just like you would collapse on a link in a substance round.
Tricks
These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.
Just don't.
Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks. Being condescending/demeaning in cross loses speaks.
Less than 25: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.
25-26: You are SERIOUSLY grinding my gears.
26-27: You made some mistakes.
27-28: Average.
28-29: Pretty good!
29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.
Other stuff
If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.
Be "Good people who happen to be good speakers"
I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in round.
Spec:
DON'T run a paraphrased case in front of me.
In person, I’m cool with the speed at 5-9.
Go slow on Tags while making sure to signpost and enunciate tags.
The speech must be clear, no matter how fast or slow it may be.
Tech over truth.
Just win the offense.
Condo & Judge Kick is fine in most cases.
I’m cool with Theory, T, Disads, Counter Plans, Trixs also.
Evidence Ethics > Convenience
Email Chain
Speechdrop.net or Steve.Haile@trojans.dsu.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
General advice in round...
Don't lose the pre req or link battle! Easier said than done...
For Theory if ran in round:
If your opponent's runs a shell, you need to fight back with a competing interpretation since defaulting under the opponent interpretation is a much larger ground too recover and out right turn into your own offense.
When running that counter interpretation make sure to have the standard establishing the basis of your counter shell then led into the link(s), "not a chain link fence" this then in turn lead(s) to your voters! Make sure to go after your opponents linkage and "no rvi clause if it exists", this is crucial for control of the theory ground.
Default Evaluation of Offense goes Theory > T > LARP > Substance
Remember, there needs to be a proper chain going down the line.
If theory, it would generally be :
Interpretation
Violation
Standard
[Whatever it is]
{linkage}
Voters
[Whatever it is]
Followed by if needed{ No RVI, Default Competing Interp, Stop Antecedent, Stop Reasonability, etc. }
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If T, then follow the same general concept and logic -> Probably can collapse/merge some parts to make it much more efficient to run.
Experience: I have competed in almost every event and I know how each is supposed to go. I've qualified to Nationals twice and I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni offering judging for various schools.
Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also welcome to time yourself when appropriate. I will give hand signals if asked. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
Having all your themes and points connect to each other and tie together at the end is really important to me. The less disconnected tangents, the better.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.
Debate Events:
If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will look at it myself. Looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time.
Reading a card does not count as a point or rebuttal in itself. I will not accept it as such without your own analysis applied and you explaining it to me why it outweighs your opponents points or is more substantive than your opponent's card(s).
I am okay with assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. You are okay to cut off your opponents if they are rambling, but be respectful about it. I am not a big fan of someone trying forcing their opponents to answer questions in forced "yes or no". A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you.
If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.
Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com
Lincoln-Douglas:
I weigh most on the value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then it's up to whoever convinces me which framework is best and who best upholds it.
Public Forum
Highlighting where in the chain of logic and evidence your opponent's arguments break is the most important to me on offense, especially when repeated speech after speech. That also means I'm looking to make sure impacts are accessed. The biggest numbers won't mean anything if your opponent explains they won't happen. A good round to me will usually look like both sides dropping smaller or weaker arguments and focusing on their biggest ones more and more as the round goes on.
Unless told otherwise, the framework I'll assume is cost-benefit analysis.
Policy:
Please ask for specifics in round
Logical articulation.
A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.
Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.
So
- State your point clearly
- Give data/source directly support your point
- Provide a clear link between your source and point
- Finish with a firm conclusion
hyt60435@gmail.com | college sophomore
For Golden Desert '25: I haven't done anything debate-related in 3 months. The only thing akin to spreading I've heard is my profs lecturing at snail speed. Spread at your own risk.
Update: I’m so sleep deprived. You don’t want to spread. :)
TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive.
I have debated 4 years of nat PF during high school at Cranbrook, MI, judged and coached for 2 years after graduating.
No, I do not subscribe to the belief of Michigan Circuit that lay judges are preferred and I believe most debaters on the nat circuit don't either.
You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.
Assume I'm ready for your speech unless I say otherwise.
Don't include me in speech docs and email chains unless I specifically ask or if you're spreading. Anything under 250 -280 wpm or 1200 words don't need a doc.
I do not have a webcam. If this is important to you, let me know through email before round and I will switch to my laptop with a camera.
Similarly, I usually do not give a long RFD nor give long comments in Tabroom since no debater want to sit there for 20 minutes waiting for the round decision (with the exception of elims). However, if you have questions/think there are any important feedbacks I can provide, ask me post-round and I will be happy to email you/type up in Tabroom a much more detailed round feedback and how I considered each of your arguments.
Novice
Safely ignore everything below. Enjoy your time, have fun, and be polite.
Logistics
Do not adapt to me. If you're very good at speaking slowly and using narrative and analytical arguments, do that. If you only know how to spread 4 contentions, do that. I will adapt to your style and so long as you win on the flow, I will vote for you. Your style will not sway your speaks in any way.
The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be. Please time yourself.
I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.
If a piece of evidence is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you. If you're going to power-tag, don't let it be obvious.
I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV. Disclosure is a norm, not a rule. Do not post-round me. Asking questions with the intent of improving or asking for constructive criticism =/= postrounding.
Speed
Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 300wpm is the max speed online, 350wpm in person, for clarity with a speech doc.
If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.
Substance
Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case. Analytical arguments > card dump > "my evidence postdates yours"
Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :).
Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, internal links, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. I will only flow the links, defense, etc you extend in speech. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.
Collapse. Going for every contention through ink usually will not work out in your favor. Your time is better spent concentrating frontlines on your strongest contention.
Signpost. I flow on a laptop unless it's elims, the better your signposting, the better I will be able to understand and flow all your arguments. Giving me a roadmap before the speech will make this much easier.
DAs, OVs, etc. Please tell me what side to flow this.
You will almost never like how I vote if you don't write the ballot in final. Don't let me default to weighing or let me evaluate what evidence or analytics I should prefer. Give me the easiest path to the ballot and why I should prefer your arguments.
Default ballot to Neg. Aff has burden of proof.
I don't flow cross.
Progressive
If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well. Most progressive arguments are warranted poorly, starting with a piece of evidence from NYU and in the next sentence citing a 1920s philosophy book. Don't read that. Debate on the same ground/topic as your opponents.
Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.
That being said, I can acknowledge that PF is moving in the direction of more progressive debates. If you must run it, explain it to me like I'm a novice debater. I will vote on almost anything as long as it's warranted. If you're in varsity, I assume you know how to respond to theory and k properly.
Framework
TLDR: Util > other framing, other frameworks are fine just don't be abusive
Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework. Framework =/= counter framework. You can read that in rebuttal.
If you read a framework with no warrant, I will not flow it.
If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.
In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki) just in case.
UKSO is my first time judging.
I am a parent (lay judge). Please go slow and make your arguments clear. Please do not use technical arguments/terms because I will not understand them.
Parent judge
Please add me to the email chain: asjaswal@gmail.com
I've been judging debate for a while now (around 5 years) so I'm not completely new to the activity but treat me as a lay judge.
Please talk at a relatively normal pace - no spreading.
Don't run any crazy arguments and definitely no prog.
Please be kind and respectful to everyone in round or I will dock speaks.
Lastly, have fun!
Parent lay judge. I will flow so please speak slowly and clearly and do not use jargon. Arguments should be fully explained in detail.
I value well-structured, concise arguments that are clearly articulated and directly support your position. I appreciate debaters who demonstrate confidence and strategic thinking in their delivery. While technical proficiency is important, clarity and persuasion are paramount—speed should never come at the expense of comprehension.
For varsity-level debaters, I expect a higher level of depth in argumentation. This means well-developed warrants, strong impacts, and clear weighing mechanisms. I appreciate strategic collapse and crystallization, especially in later speeches. Efficiency is key—avoid unnecessary repetition, and prioritize the most persuasive and defensible arguments.
Confidence is essential, but it should be backed by substance. If you’re uncertain about a point, it’s better to drop it than to defend it weakly. Adaptability is a plus—engaging with your opponent’s case rather than simply reading pre-prepared blocks will improve your speaker points.
Finally, respect and professionalism are non-negotiable. Debates should be rigorous but not hostile. Speak at a pace that allows for engagement rather than just coverage. If I can clearly follow and understand your arguments, you are in a strong position to win my ballot.
I am in my 4th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.
LD/PF
Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.
Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.
I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.
I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.
Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.
Congressional debate
Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123
Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim
I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.
Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.
This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.
If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.
While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.
For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.
Speech
I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.
Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123
Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim
I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.
Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.
Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.
I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).
I coach national circuit PF and occasionally LD.
I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.
COME LEARN DEBATE FROM ME! NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate. We have a stellar staff including Bashir Eltyeb (Iowa City West, TOC semifinalist), Michi Synn (Canyon Crest, dozens of bids), Devin Lester (Lakeville North, 3x TOC), and Ingrid Alg-Liening (Theodore Roosevelt, 3x Gold TOC). We support students of all experience levels, from brand-new novices to national circuit contenders. If you have any questions about camp, come talk to me (preferably after my ballot has been submitted).
"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.
I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa (I was also a double 2[!] in the most local policy debate circuit of all time) and had no exposure to the national circuit. Since becoming head coach at Roosevelt we've had state champions and TOC qualifiers every year.
Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too.
If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...
Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive."
Lincoln-Douglas:
Policy/LARP: 1
K: 1
T/Theory: 1
Phil: 3
Tricks: 4
–––––––––––––––––––
Public Forum
Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of case & all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.
I’m a tech/blank-slate judge. "Intervention" is the scariest word in debate. I flow line-by-line on my computer or on paper depending how I'm feeling. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.
The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, impact turns, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.
I vote on offense/defense, that includes framing, layering, and specific weighing mechanisms.
Speed is fine, go as fast as you want. However I will not have the speech doc open. It's your responsibility to be clear.
Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.
I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards; let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience. My email is open for this purpose as well. Multiple debaters have told me I look intimidating/scary during round and then turn into a nice guy afterwards; I'm just focused and thinking hard.
Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." I will bump your speaks slightly if you open-source disclose.
Long story short, Just win baby~!
–––––––––––––––––––
Lincoln-Douglas
Email: klynpar@gmail.com
People get scared when they see a primarily PF coach in their circuit LD judge pools -- I promise, I can handle what you're throwing at me as long as you do the effective work in judge instruction. In any debate event, capable judging is a must-have, and I will live up to that expectation.
Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.
You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Love scouring the opencaselist for unique, creative arguments. I am not confident in evaluating performance, academic philosophy, or postmodernist arguments -- these would probably require lots of warranting and explanation, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me. Ultimately, I'd rather see a team perform an advocacy they're confident in than over-adapt.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc; this is the one place where it's up to the debaters to adapt, not the judge).
I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. The only arguments I will not vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad."
Iowa circuit: Run whatever you want. I'm open to "traditional" Lincoln-Douglas but you need to meet the bare minimum of argumentation in extending framing (your value/criterion) and weighable offense (your contention(s)) for me to vote for you. I don't fill in any gaps, I often presume aff/neg if one side establishes that the status quo is currently good/bad because neither side extended any complete arguments.
–––––––––––––––––––
Congress
If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!
If you do not add new argumentation or refute previous speeches you will not get a rank, regardless of how "good of a speaker" you are.
It is difficult for me to rank POs in the top 3 -- if they are tied on points, I will always go with the people who actually debated.
–––––––––––––––––––
Speech
Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I would consider myself a competent Extemp (coached multiple state champions) and Platform (coached a NIETOC semifinalist) judge and a middling Interp judge -- UNLESS it's POI, in which case I definitely know what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!
Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.
Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. No matter how technically proficient you are, if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.
Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessively traumatic topics in DI; they feel very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.
–––––––––––––––––––
Debate thoughts:
1) Flow. It is so easy to tell when you're not flowing.
2) You should not need a marked doc when only a couple cards were skipped.
3) This idea that "spreading has no real-world benefits" is so blatantly and obviously false to anyone who has actually engaged in fast debate. Worse argumentation presented in a pretty manner is indisputably less academically robust and pedagogically valuable than more in-depth argumentation presented at a speedy pace.
4) Judges should not look at evidence before submitting their ballot unless directly instructed to throughout the course of the round as a result of a legitimate substantive contestation that was not resolved by debating. Looking at evidence invites judge intervention, where debates should only be resolved based on words spoken within speech times.
5) Everyone should always be willing to proactively disclose all evidence read previously in a debate. People who don't do this usually fall into a few camps: (1) genuinely being uninformed (in which case adjusting to disclosing is an easy fix), (2) strategic reasons (i.e. those who know deep down disclosure is good and utilize disclosed evidence in their files but do not disclose themselves to prevent prep-outs), or (3) coaching (i.e. their coach won't let them, tells them it's bad, etc.). All of these reasons fall apart if debate is to be taken remotely seriously as an academic endeavor. If my debaters can disclose every constructive and rebuttal card in their extremely personal Black Nihilism K you can disclose your stuff too. (Note that this does not mean I am a disclosure theory hack.)
6) Despite the time and energy I spend in this wonderful activity, I am a glorified volunteer. I teach literacy to struggling readers and my stipend averages to about $2/hour. Many debate coaches, even those at the highest levels, are in similar situations -- be good to them.
7) Be kind and reasonable to everyone in the activity, whether you are a judge (don't bully children in your RFD, don't arbitrarily change speaker points because they brought you food) or competitor (welcome novices with open arms, practice epistemic humility, thank the adults in your life who have allowed you to find a home in debate). If you are someone who indicates in their paradigm that they increase speaker points for anything unrelated to debating or norm-setting, I actively think less of you as a member of our community and feel immense second-hand embarrassment on your behalf.
8) Stick with debate. I emphatically believe is the best thing you can do with your time in high school.
I am parent judge and I am extremely lay. Please be clear and speak confidently. If I can’t understand your argument, I won’t evaluate it during the round. Please be respectful to everyone in the room.
Please do not ask me for feedback after the round, it will be in your RFD.
Good luck and have fun!
flow judge
didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it
near 0 K experience so read if u rly want
typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day
be nice
My email is lisunysb@gmail.com. Parent judge: give preference for clarity and credible evidence over information overloading
my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com
I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.
SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM
PF Paradigm:
- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.
- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.
- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.
- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.
- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.
Some little things:
- I'm fine w speed
- Time your own speeches and prep
- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches
- I love unconventional arguments
- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me
- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)
The debate is about you so have fun! I'm good with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)
Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!
LD Paradigm:
I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.
- do what you want for the most part i don't care, as long as you just tell me why i should vote for you
- Tech > Truth
- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.
- K's are fine
- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.
- I like theory
- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote
- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.
Good luck:)
I went to James River (‘22) and did PF mainly on the local VHSL circuit. My judging stats
Pref sheet: I’ll evaluate anything that isn’t exclusionary, but there are some arguments that I’m definitely not as good with.
Larp- 1 (This is what I’m most comfortable with and judge most often. I prefer judging substance debates where both sides are prepared to do solid comparative analysis.)
T/Theory-2/3 (I like it when you can clearly explain both the in-round implications of the violation and why your model of debate is better.)
K-3 (Generally, I view Ks as disads where the alt is a counterplan. I think you should be able to explain who does the alt, what doing the alt entails in literal terms, and how the alt solves the harms discussed in the K)
Phil-4 (Not that familiar with it other than util and think the in round implications of Phil can be clearer.)
General:
- Try your best and have some fun. Authenticity is far more persuasive than manufactured politeness.
- I flow by ear and try not to intervene. Judge instruction and comparative weighing are the best ways to minimize intervention. Slow down in the back half of the round and make things clear. Do the comparison and tell me why to prefer your arguments. You can read an awesome response, but if you don’t tell me what it means for the round and why/how it factors into my decision then it’s just more words on my flow. After judging for about a year, the teams that do the best in front of me are comparing each part of the argument they collapse on, telling me why theirs is better, and using judge instruction to write the ballot for me.
- I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.
PF specifics:
- Evidence exchanges take too long. For bid tournaments, y'all need to send the evidence you read in case and rebuttal before you give those speeches.
- Second rebuttal needs to frontline the argument you’re going for and turns
- Defense isn’t sticky. If you want me to care about a response, extend it in summary
Speed/Speaker points:
- Clarity>>>speed. Some speed is fine(~275wpm) but don’t sacrifice all of your clarity to go fast. Slow down on taglines and signpost more than you think you need to..it’s important. I’ll say clear twice before I give up
- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be generous
~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before or after the round. Also, feel free to email me with any of those questions or concerns.
Thank you, Castelo..debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching.
I am a parent lay judge. I have a little knowledge of speech and debate, and I will be looking for good presentation skills and etiquette. I would like to see everyone be nice to their opponents and want a good round.
Good luck!
General
- Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
- I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will also bump speaking points if you send speech docs.
- I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
- Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org
PF
I can handle some speed however (within reason, i.e. no spreading), I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.
All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).
I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.
Congress
In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!
The key to explaining your reasoning to me lies in precision and continuity.
1. When you state facts or provide evidence, ensure you have sufficient granularity to make your point. Eg. “Half the world is male. Therefore, half the students in computer science can be safely assumed to be male.” Insufficient granularity to make the assumption. I consider this a "leap of faith."
2. Once you have established a fact, show me why it is relevant - without link it might look like "data salad" to me. I might not see what you feel is obvious. So state the obvious to make sure we are on the same page and path of reasoning.
3. Ensure your argument is closely reasoned. Well reasoned descriptions go a lot farther at convincing people than a tirade of random bits of evidence.
4. Cross & Grand: Your cross should cover all points raised in opponent's contentions. I have little choice but to favor contentions that are not refuted unless I believe them to be outright false. Listen to your opponents so you can surgically refute or challenge opponent's arguments. If you can’t cover all contentions due to time, then I will take that into consideration as well.
Remember, we are all here to learn. My goal is to be fair and give you feedback, not as criticism that cost you points - chances are it didn’t - but as a way to help you broaden your thinking, sharpen your focus, or help you articulate a position more effectively. Enjoy. This is a great journey you are on. I hope with my feedback you are able to discover how to better leverage that great factory in your brain.
First-time parent judge. I value quality evidence, clear speaking, and a good cohesive narrative. Be polite to your opponents and construct sound arguments.
I'm a parent judge and I have a son who has done debate for some time. I know the basics but would not like any advanced jargon. Please speak clearly and not too fast so that I will be able to follow your arguments. I look for logical arguments with clear reasoning.
-I am a parent judge with limited judging experience, so make sure you go slow and state your claims clearly.
-Make sure you are respectful throughout the round; your speaker points will reflect this.
-Don't assume I have any prior knowledge on this debate topic.
-Make sure you are speaking well and sound convincing , that’s probably how I will be voting.
I am a lay judge. Speak clearly and slowly.
Hey, I'm Hassan and I debated for seven years
Read whatever u want, debate however u want, wear whatever you want, and speak however you want. Just make sure u explain ur args well, I won't fill in gaps for you
Also dont be a bad person lol
I don't care about speed, just be clear pls
always send docs, add hpalan330@gmail.com to the chain
Quick prefs:
Policy - 1
Theory - 1
K - 2
phil - 3/4
Tricks - 5/S
First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.
Put me on the chain: jamespiazzaiii@gmail.com
Topicality
I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.
Counterplans
CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.
Disads
Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.
Kritiks
I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.
Planless Affirmatives
If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.
Hello,
I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 4 years now.
I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.
I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.
I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.
I’m a parent judge with some experience judging.
Please have clear, well-substantiated, logical arguments. I weigh arguments supported by evidence.
Be respectful and have fun.
Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.
- I am a fairly new judge
- I am not familiar to debate terms
- Please don't go too fast
I am fairly generous with speaker points.
I will most likely give you (28-30)
I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.
TLDR: Good with Substance, Ks, theory, whatever u want to debate. Over 200wpm, and I'll prob need a doc.
Sinan Roumie (He/Him/His)
Sinanrdebate@gmail.com
Im a Freshman at Duke University, Debated 4 years @ Bronx Science
Tech > Truth
NO POST ROUNDING. You can ask for feedback, but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won. Adapt better, your final focus should be writing my ballot for me.
Anything remotely racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic etc, etc will result in an automatic L20
Extra stuff
-
Nothing is sticky; extend what you want me to evaluate
-
Good with speed, but FF & summary should be slow to clarify offense
-
I don’t like to do evidence comparisons, I want to vote solely off my flow/what y’all tell me to vote for. However, if an evidence claim is brought up in round I will vote off a lack of evidence/ bad evidence.
-
Keep your offtime road maps brief
-
I listen to cross but it won’t sign my ballot
-
Both teams can agree to skip grand for prep
-
I presume NEG, unless told otherwise
-
Speak overtime and I'll stop flowing
Progressive arguments:
-
If you are in Varsity, be prepared to hit varsity arguments.
-
Everything should be warranted, especially in the back half.
-
Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies. I think it’s funny, and people learn how to debate these arguments when exposed to them
-
I don't have a default for what should be evaluated first in the round other than prefiat>postfiat. Def warrant why K>theory, theory>K, etc.
[Theory]:
-
Fairness is an internal link, not an impact.
-
Baiting theory is fine. It's a valid strategy. If you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs, I'll evaluate it, but I need further implications on why it is bad.
-
I default yes RVIs if there's no ink on that debate
-
+1 speaker point if you specify whether RVIs apply to offense or defense
-
+1.5 speaker points if you read RVI spec [+0.5 more if you win on it]
[K's]:
-
Alt should resolve the link- rejecting the aff is not a good alt(unless it is)
-
You can spread cards in the 1NC, but i gotta actually understand them by final
-
I prefer Identity Ks > philosophical Ks mainly because I understand Identity args better.
-
Speaks:
-
Performance - if it's good ill give 30s
-
Egregious Clipping - speaks cap’d at 28
-
Paraphrasing - speaks cap’d at 27
-
Callout K - speaks cap’d at 25
[K AFF's]:
-
Topical affs are cool, Nontopical affs are also cool.
-
Please, please, please have a topic link. Too many affs nowadays don't have topic links, and while that's fine, it would make adjudicating so much easier.
-
Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I have a high threshold for them
[Trix]:
-
Not experienced with them, run them at your own risk
Speaks
-
30 speaks warrants have to be extended for it to be eval’d
-
Speaks are based on round strategy, not speaking style
-
-1 speaks if you are a big school that adds an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain
I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped, slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence, have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.
English is not my first language so please enunciate everything and speak clearly. I prefer clear, logical explanations over name-dropping evidence.
Please extend your evidence! I don't want to see a new point in final focus that you forgot about the entire round and it suddenly comes up.
I would like to be on the email chain andPLEASE SEND CASES BEFORE ROUND STARTS SO I CAN FOLLOW ALONG- ir.rozinsky@gmail.com
Thank you and looking forward to a great debate!
I am in my 3rd year at Cornell University and last judged when I coached at Harvard and NSD.
I debated PF for four years at Glen Rock High School. Broke at Silver TOC, attended Gold TOC.
Add me to email chains:alyssasereb@gmail.com
NOT your best judge for evaluating prog (emphasis on this)
Speed is fine, send a doc if you go over 250 wpm
I can disclose who wins.
If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to email me!
TL;DR: tech>truth, good with speed, If you want me to vote on something it needs to be in summary and final focus, well weighed, and extended with warrants, send docs, have fun.
Hi! I have debated for Lakeville for 4 years and judged for 1. I have competed on the national circuit and have done some coaching/ judging
email: austinsiefken2024@gmail.com lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
People who influenced my judging and debate style:
Naomi Davis
Tejas Neneman
Debate needs to be a respectful and open space if any of your actions do not reflect that or inhibit people from being comfortable in the debate space your scoring will suffer. Most importantly have fun, debate is an activity where you are supposed to learn in a fun atmosphere.
I do not flow cross if you want me to vote on something mentioned in cross it needs to be in the next speech.
Preferences
- Frontline in second rebuttal, if you don't I will assume you concede all first rebuttal
- Signposting
- Meta weighing
- Clean warranted extensions
- Collapse in summary
- Extending stuff in FF or summary (that's the only way I'll vote for what you want me to)
- Prereqing/ link ins/short circuits are cool
- Tell me exactly what I should vote on
- FF should write my ballot
- Use a beeping timer to stop your opponents from steal prep or speech time
- Frontlining everything in second rebuttal if possible
- sending rebuttal docs that are well formatted
Some pet peeves:
- Going to the round without preflowing
- Paraphrasing
- Taking forever to send and share evidence
- Interrupting people in cross
- Taking way too long to ask a question in cross
- Being mean or condescending to your opponents
- Post rounding
- Giving an off time road map that is more than 5 words
- Using the words pathos, ethos, or logos
- Saying something was dropped when it clearly wasn't
- Saying "we outweigh on _____" and never giving a warrant
- Saying "I-E" more than 2 times in a round
- honestly probability weighing. its feels very fake and subjective. I'll still evaluate it but I do not find it persuasive.
- reading framing without giving me a clear role of the ballot
Evidence Issues (credit to Maddie Cook):
- Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
- Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins.
- Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
- It shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds to locate a card, and if it takes more than 2 minutes, I’ll strike it from the flow and start dropping your speaker points.
- The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
- Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
- I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
- I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
Theory:
I'm not too experienced in theory debate but do understand it. If you want to run it go for it.
- Frivolous theory is bad.
- I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
- Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
- "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
- A counter interpretation is not an RVI. RVIs are a completely separate (and bad) part of the debate.
Kritiks:
- I am not super well versed on most K lit, I would err on the side of over-explaining your arguments.
- When extending the K, don't just reread the entire thing.
- You need an alt or its going to very difficult for me to vote on it
- Understand your own args
Please feel free to ask me any questions about my judging before the round
Hi debater, I am a parent judge.
1. I flow the rounds but not as well as the judges that flow pf every weekend and appreciate careful and reasonably speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources but not everything needs to be carded for the value of the round but have good warranting if there is no cards.
2. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
3. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with bad speaks.
4. Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.
5. My preference is a debate that argues the assigned topic in good faith, I would prefer not to hear K Cases.
6. Please weigh or give voters, it really helps outline the round. Extend your arguments throughout speeches:)
7. As a first-time judge, some debate jargon is unfamiliar to me. Please try to avoid jargon unless you can quickly explain it to me.
8. I mostly do not disclose after round unless instructed by the tournament.
Wish you all the best for your rounds.
Hey everyone!
I'm a parent ("lay") judge based in Tennessee.
I would prefer if all competitors within the round kept their own time both in speeches and prep time.
Good luck to all!
andy stowers forest
I do anti-trafficking research and judge debate.I also like reading banned books for free from anywhere using the instructions here:this link. Technology is cool!
General
- Please don't be a jerk to your opponents: this is supposed to be fun, not miserable.
- If your argument requires me to believe a certain country's government is a bad actor, you MUST make some attempt to justify this statement.
- If your argument requires me to believe people FROM a certain country are bad actors, I will personally not find this argument persuasive whatsoever.
- Really, any type of argument founded in implicit or explicit identity-based hate will not be persuasive to me at all. Explicit identity-based hate comments will cause me to stop the round and report the matter to tab immediately. Many, many marginalized debaters worked hard to be here and deserve to be respected.
- I want to be on the email chain, please ask for my email in round.
- Mostly tech judge, but tbh more of my subject matter expertise is in direct policy advocacy and consulting work, so I probably care a little more about face validity than your average tech judge.
- Stand to speak or sit to speak, I truly don't care: I'm here to listen to a good debate and I'd prefer y'all debate in the way that's most comfortable for you.
- If you think I'm not flowing during cross, you're correct. Per the rules, say it in your speech or it won't count.
Technical preferences
- If both of you choose extinction as your main impact, absent other clear voters, then I'll probably vote for the extinction scenario that takes everyone out more quickly or with less suffering. You've been warned.
- I think extinction impacts are nearly all non-unique and it's really just a matter of how long it takes vs. how long it would otherwise have taken were the given action not performed. Using extinction impacts as a primary impact is generally more convincing to me if you identify how your side would either delay inevitable climate changeor how it would insulate some part of the human or animal population against full extinction (even if only a small part). Otherwise I kinda just think you're reading cards that you don't fully know how to apply as argumentation.
- I'm fine with speed as long as you're fine with speed: sometimes students simply are not at the level of skill to be spreading as quickly as they are and I strongly encourage you to respect your own skill level in making this assessment.
- On that note, don't spread unless you're going to share your case doc.
- SIGNPOST. if you are doing your case with speed, please slow down for just your contention labels so I can tell very clearly when you are moving between points and whether I have missed something.
- Winning rounds isn't just about having smart arguments, but about being able to explain them in a convincing manner to somebody (the judge) who has had less time than you have with the source material (your case). There's a great quote from BJ Novak about making television that imo applies to debate, I'm paraphrasing tho bc I can't find the original: "you can't just say that the problem was your audience because they were too stupid to understand your script. That's your audience, that's who this is for, if they didn't get it then you didn't write it well enough."
- My goal is to be able to cleanly vote off of flow in rounds: you can make this easier for me by presenting your arguments in the same order or as close to it each time. You can also make this easier for me clearly signposting, and by avoiding irrelevant arguments/explanations.
- For some reason, it's not en vogue to clearly define terms in the resolution, specify framework, or specify a weighing mechanism...if you do these things, you have a better chance at winning my vote
Updated 1/28/2024
Quick Q&A:
1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com
2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card
3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best
4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.
5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating (ESPECIALLY) if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump. I am not asking for a conversation speed debate, I am asking for you to be sow enough that you are clear. If that is super fast, good for you. If that is slower, sorry but that's the speed you should go.
6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.
7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.
8. AI-generated cards are an auto -2.5 speaker points. This is embarrassing. I'm open to hear it's a reason to reject the team.
9. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD
WARNINGS:
- I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
- I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
- I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
- I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
- If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.
- This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
- This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word.
- When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
- If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.
The longer version:
Speaker points:
I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:
-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,
-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,
-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,
-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.
I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.
If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.
If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.
I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.
Speaker-point factors:
- Did you debate well?
- Were you clear?
- Did you maintain my attention?
- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?
- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?
- Were you going way too hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?
K STUFF:
Planless Clash debates:
-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.
-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.
-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.
-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.
-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.
-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.
-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.
-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot
-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.
-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other
Neg K v plans:
-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.
-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.
-Generally, contradictions justify severance
-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks
-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.
-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.
-please slow down on framework blocks!
K v K debate:
I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.
I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.
K stuff in general:
-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.
-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.
-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.
PF/LD:
I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider
LD
I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.
Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.
PF:
Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.
Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.
Do not pref me if you don't want to disclose your arguments.
Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.
Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.
No need to knock on the table when time runs out for the other team. I come from policy and I don't think it's rude to have a timer go off. I think it's more rude to have your time go over while speaking, than to tell someone they are over time.
POLICY STUFF:
CPs:
-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.
-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"
-Make the intrinsic perm great again!
-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.
Theory:
-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.
-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.
-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.
-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.
DAs:
-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.
-answer turns case!!!
I am a parent judge.
I give more weight to contents than to style of delivery.
I highly value clarities in your understanding of the topic, in the contentions you are making, and in the logical connections between your supporting materials and conclusions. Simply citing a researcher or a publication to "prove" X leads to Y without you telling me how that is supposed to work won't help you a lot. This means that you have to do some serious thinking by yourself during your preparation.
As of style of delivery, I appreciate clarity and confidence in your speech. So you really don't want to rush it under the pressure of squeezing in more contents.
Of course, rudeness and sarcasm to your opponent are game losers.
I'll not mind if anybody does not pronounce my name correctly and I may not be good at pronouncing yours either. I believe tolerance means we should demand less from others, not more.
My email to be used in your email chain: daoshan.sun@gmail.com
Hello! I am a parent judge. A respectful debate is expected and I look for the ability to judge a round by weighing the impacts of the positions offered. Support for the contentions is noted where included. Best of luck during the round and throughout the tournament.
I am a parent judge. I am a Financial Officer at the United Nations and I am excited to be judging this interesting event of High School Speech and Debate.
Talk at a normal speed, don't go too fast.
Have fun and good luck!
Hi, I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for a long time with a lot of debates over time, but don't consider me a highly skilled varsity debate judge. I really prefer novice debates and slower, clear speakers. I am very good at keeping an open mind and a blank slate, so tell me how to vote, carefully follow the flow and we should do just fine. Thank you!
I am a First-year out 4 years of PF at Theodore Roosevelt High School
Add me on the email chain please: Charlesetimm@gmail.com
Please make an email chain and send docs so evidence exchange is either not necessary or it goes really quickly
Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.
TLDR: I am a tech judge.
Judging Philosophy
For all events I am here to evaluate you, run whatever you would like.
I am tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.
I don't care about speed.
I don't flow off the doc
Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.
Good weighing will probably win you the debate.
Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence is bad have cut cards.
Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.
Kritiks
I had very limited exposure to Ks when I was debating. I have seen more since judging and can evaluate K's but you must run them
Theory
Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.
Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.
Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.
If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.
sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.
for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.
from there, these are things to keep in mind:
--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.
--TIME yourselves. I beg.
--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them. but it’s your choice
--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.
--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.
hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.
--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).
--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.
--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).
Hello, I'm Charlie!
Cbwalker22@mail.strakejesuit.org
Former Strake debater competed for 4 years. Qualified for TOC and TFA state.
I am a flow/tech judge who can follow most of the arguments and speeds of PF. I don't prefer spreading because I think it gets in the way of making stronger arguments at a more deliberate pace. If your spreading makes the round inaccessible to your opponents, you should slow down. The most important thing you can do is make sense.
I do not like email chains. We are in person now and can easily show each other evidence by virtue of us all being in the same room. Email chains always have some hiccups that slow the round down. If you insist on it, prepare in advance and be ready to start the round as soon as the flip is decided.
I want to get everyone in and out of round as efficiently as possible, so please pre-flow! You know what your cases are and can easily prepare an aff or neg flow right now! This saves us all time and lets you prepare for your speeches.
In terms of conduct and speaker points: Being kind goes a lot farther than being right. You should be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire. It is never so serious that you need to be mean to your opponent.
In terms of timing and prep: Please be honest! I will time as well and if you give me a noticeably different time than what I or your opponents measured, I will be less favorable with your speaker points. If your opponent is speaking unreasonably beyond the time limit, hold up your timer. Trust that I will stop flowing after they complete their sentence at the expiration of time.
I am a parent judge, however, I was an L/D debater for 4 years in high school. I have judged Public Forum in person once before. I prefer you speak in a more conversational tone. You are welcome to speak quickly, but if you mumble or blow through words for the sake of speed your argument may lose strength. I will be looking for not only strength of argument and backup evidence, but also excellent presentation and speaking skills.
Lay, argue everything clearly. Respond to all contentions of opponents. Make everything seem simple rather than complex. Be sure to emphasize the greater positive impact of your position and weighing as compared to your opponents.
Be clear and easily understandable. No spreading. I will not understand you and cannot give good marks to arguments I do not understand. If you use acronyms, do not assume I know the meaning. Avoid throwing around phrases like "try or die" or "existential threats" without clearly explaining why that characterization is justified.
Aim for professional, calm and authoritative demeanor. Avoid appearing emotional or angry. Demonstrate your command of the subject by your words rather than your volume . I expect teams to time themselves. If you believe your opponent has gone over their allotted time, it is ok topolitely point that out when it happens.
Be courteous, gracious and respectful to your opponents and all involved. I will not give credit for new offense that was not raised in a timely fashion during the first two speaker roles for each team. I can only give credit for evidence and arguments to which your opponents had an appropriate opportunity to respond.
Please share evidence ahead of round, or, at a minimum, be prepared to produce any requested evidence immediately upon request. We need to avoid delays resulting from producing evidence during the round, Schedule is tight. Slow production of evidence may be taken into account when awarding speaker points. Please copy me on evidence exchanges. Email is gwilson6636@gmail.com. That said, I generally expect the debaters to attack or respond to the evidence of the other, and I do not expect to make any independent assessment of evidence except where the debaters have a disagreement over what the evidence says.
Signpost clearly and make it easy to follow. Roadmap is ok, but keep it very, very short.
speak clearly and not too fast
I am a former speech competitor, where I competed in Prose, Duo, OO, Info, DI, and ADS (a humorous OO) in high school and college. I am now a speech coach and occasionally judge debate.
I value well structured, well researched, clearly stated arguments. Because I am not a debater, and do not often judge debate, I do appreciate a slower delivery and limited jargon use. I expect respect during rounds between competitors. I am not able to follow spreading, so I will likely miss parts of your argument if you speak too quickly.
I have a zero tolerance policy for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or any other -ism/-phobia.
New judge.
Don't spread
Be respectful
Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.
I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain all your arguments. If you use any abbreviations or acronyms specific to the topic please explain them.
Speaker points:
26 - below average
27 - average
28 - better than average
29 - get into elimination rounds
30 - one of the best debaters at the tournament.