Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for years across several large tournaments

I prefer you to talk/read slowly so I can follow you; it helps me judge more easily. If you are a fast reader/talker, please make sure you slow down. This is more applicable to online debates.

I am an experienced judge with more than a year experience. Yes, I do take notes.

As a judge, I also keep an official time, acting as the final authority if any timing discrepancies arise. But you are responsible for keeping time.

I come from the world of college parli debate (IPDA/NPDA/BP) which means that I have seen most types of theory/tech/speed, but do not misconstrue this to mean that I will always vote on these issues or understand your theory. Feel free to reach out at aidanboyd2003@gmail.com to discuss ballots. I believe in the educational role of the critic, but will not engage in a debate about if you "deserved to win" or if you disagree with choices I made.

For me there are a some guiding principles outlined below, but it mostly comes down to being a non-interventionist judge unless debater's conduct becomes abusive. It is your debate round, not mine, which means you can set the parameters you would like. However, this means you have the responsibility to explain HOW your arguments work, WHAT the impacts are, and WHY your arguments win you the round (especially when it comes to abstract theory arguments).

For every round:

1. DO provide voting issues and clearly break down one or more lines of reasoning that should win you the debate. DO weigh impacts explicitly, especially in PF. For the best debaters, I should be able to take my RFD straight from your flow. This is especially true for me in LD.
2. DO call out every argument that you want me to consider in the round. Barring exceptional abuse (outlined below), I do not consider arguments not presented. Thus, if your opponent says something obviously wrong, irrelevant, or their theory argument is non-sensical, you must address this for me to consider it.
3. DO give clear and concise signposts during your time. DO give clear weighing criteria and DO link arguments to them (especially in LD). DO use advantages/disadvantages and address stock issues when they come up.
4. Finally, DO be clear on where I should be flowing your arguments, especially on rebuttal. I DO NOT automatically cross-apply arguments, so please be explicit when you want to pull arguments through. Organization is often where debates are won and lost.

On Conduct:

1. DO NOT use speed as a means to exclude your opponent or other judges in the room. If you hear anyone in the room calling "SPEED" or "CLEAR" please change your speed/enunciation accordingly or I will stop flowing. Further, I have noticed that high schoolers rarely enunciate enough to utilize speed so extreme that it influences your breathing. Try at your own risk, but if your words aren't clear no one in round can meaningfully engage.

2. DO set up as much possible clash as possible in the round, so that it is clear how your cases diverge in the round, but DO NOT be rude, abusive, or condescending to your opponents. This also means not violating the inclusivity of the community by being racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You can advance arguments across the political spectrum without making people feel unwelcome from the activity. I DO vote on abuse when it becomes excessive. Please DO call out abuse when you encounter it and DO NOT shy away from making it a voter issue.

Specific to Colorado: the rising trend of lying about your opponents timing has become troubling enough that I will vote against you if this happens. I am the judge, thus I (or the chair) am timing.

On Theory:

1. On Topicality: PLEASE show me how there is proven abuse as Negative. Competing frameworks/counter-definitions are helpful but not required. T is an a priori issue so it needs to be addressed with a significant amount of time on the negative. A passing mention to a topicality claim to waste aff's time will not win my ballot, but dropping a topicality claim as aff almost certainly will lose you my ballot.
2. On Kritik: DO NOT assume I know your theory (i.e. explain key concepts, don't just say "aff must lose because Foucault"). Even if I do, please clearly explain what it means as a theory and for this round. Further, provide a clear link to why your critical argument means you must win the round. I am skeptical, but open, to K affs. You must provide a clear reason why your advocacy means that you therefore win the round (i.e. we don't like the resolution is not enough). Please try to avoid this style of debate. If performative, please explain how it links to the round explicitly or I will judge as I would in an interp round.
3. On Theory in General: When you enter the realm of theoretical debate, you change the universe of the round. Make sure to clearly articulate what an AFF and a NEG (or PRO and CON) ballot means to your side. This also means that you need to be consistent. Contradictory arguments defeat advocacy, especially on K unless this is an explicit part of your theory. Please avoid contradicting the rules of your own universe as this is the downfall of many theory arguments.

Experience: Policy,

Ie: wide range; emphasis on poetry, program oral interpretation, dramatic interpretation- as well as extemp( domestic and foreign)

Fairly new to the judging scene!

For any debate format: a successfully run theory argument is liable to outweigh on basis of educational value, for example. Note: This does not mean abusing theory and not having standards/impacts. Furthermore, Progressive argumentation is beneficial as long as it remains non-muddled. If opting against progressive argumentation, focus on advocating position through persuasive and clear communication-emphasis of impact( and applicable links)

Overall, the most important thing is to keep it simple/understandable! I can’t vote on something that is not clearly explained. Be particular about what you feel needs to be emphasized. It is your responsibility to clearly tell me why you are winning:) communication emphasis on CLARITY. Furthermore, please include a road map, as it will help me keep track of the arguments

Being a speech oriented person( and an acting bfa major) effective oral communication is just as important as the argument. Clear and well-defined communication is of utmost significance in persuading me of your resolution/position overall: traditional or progressive debates don’t outweigh wholly on basis of argument, but how you personally interpret and communicate

Along with being as specific and concise as you’re able, I appreciate diction, inflection, enunciation, projection, eye contact, etc. In other words, speaking loudly, clearly, and empathetically! (Logos and pathos!)

Simply put- focus on CLEAR communication.always be precise and effective, don’t make me do the flow work for you :)

Plainly outline your arguments at the end of a speech- re-emphasis on your impacts. And as far as impact calc goes, I am open to hearing from both sides which issues should be weighed more heavily.) prioritize clear instruction on how I should weigh! Furthermore, utilize the final speeches to the best of your ability! This is the last time to outline why your arguments outweigh! Make it crystal clear why I should vote for you!

Remember; you are convincing me through clear argumentation and concisely connected evidence. ( make sure to accurately link!)

All in all, it is up to YOU to persuade me that your resolution/argument should win!

Good luck and have fun!

College Parli: NPDA National Champion (2015) | KCKCC

College Policy: CEDA Semi-Finalist, NDT 2x ('14-15), Kentucky RR ('12), Weber RR ('14) | Emporia ('12), KCK ('13-'15)

High School Policy: 3 TOC Bids, NE State CX Champ, Berkley Semi-Finalist ('12) | '09-'12 @ Millard South

---->

NOTE:

I am a somewhat expressive judge. I can be stoic as a default, but if I am nodding along, it means I understand you, and if I'm being quite expressive, then I think you are making a good argument.

I may ask for paper to flow; it's my preferable flowing method. Sorry and thank you in advance.

I have my background and biases,but I want to see the best debater win.

---->

PARADIGM:

I was primarily a Kritik debater in high school and a Performance/Method debater in college.

No matter the form or content that you are presenting, there are disads, permutations, impact turns, links, no-links, internal links, framework, topicality, sequencing, evidence comparison, and all that jazz to be had.

I am most comfortable in a Clash Of Civilizations (Traditional Vs. K) or K Vs. K debate, but I am open to adjudicating outside of my comfort zone, weighing all kinds of arguments, barring horrendous ones.

I find myself voting on framing, impacts, and internal links as a default. Clash - or contrast - matters.

I love unique spins on resolutions and flipping the script on debate conventions (be unique) while also *using* debate conventions (offense vs. defense, evidence, claim + warrant, comparisons, ethos/pathos/logos).

I have judged over a decade of LD (and even PF) at this point but it is still not my forte. Your jargon, or even how you view the debate in front of us, may be lost on me at times. Assume the worst and hedge, and we can get back on track.

For all debate styles: A good speech is a good speech. A great speech is an art form. And the epic totality of all your speeches should feel fresh, immersive, and have levels to it.

By the end of the debate, it's helpful for me if you emphasize clarity and substance above over-extending yourself on the flow, though you should 100% cover what you need on each flow.

Examples rock. Paint a picture. I'm a visual learner who benefits from repetition.

Show me the debater you are, and I will do due diligence to adapt. Play to your strengths.

Truth over tech (the line-by-line), but tech still matters greatly unless and until a cluster of arguments is formed and won that sets and sways the rhythm, tone, and flow of the debate.

Extend your arguments and evidence, not just your taglines, authors, and dates. Address when your opponent does the bare minimum.

I find that some teams don't capitalize enough on concessions or "moments" in debates, or they do so in a way that is merely surface-level. Use it to frame them out of the debate. Go all in (your mileage may vary).

Interact with the crux of their arguments - the best version of what they are saying - directly on the line-by-line and put offense and defense on the flow. Tilt the scales every chance you get. Control the line-by-line.

I try to flow cross-ex, but no guarantees. This is typically my favorite part of the debate.

Speed is fine. Whether it's good for your precise, situationally-dependent speech, or even just the point you are on, is an entirely other thing.

Clarity over speed, always. Especially for the last 3 speeches.

Seriously, slow down on taglines and analytics. Time constraints? I would rather you be strategic with your time than speed/throw everything at the wall, with the risk that little, if any, of it sticks.

I reward debaters via speaks when they a) start their rebuttal speeches with (valuable) overviews, b) take risks (bonus points when they pay off), c) keep the flows in order or at least mitigate the chaos of a million tiny arguments, and d) have great cross-ex's and bring that same energy and clarity for speeches.

I will disclose speaks if asked.

Don't let the debate get close.

I find that strategic usage of time in rebuttals can make or break a ballot, so I might suggest taking a breath to emphasize key factors in your debate.

Don't out-spread yourself by trying to out-spread the opponent. A few well-developed, top-level arguments are better than a few blippy, under-developed shadow-extensions. Take that extra second to strategize the big picture before you dive in.

Of course, you could convince me to defer against my default paradigm.

Role Of The Ballot (ROTB) debates are more than just a blip; I invite both teams to interact with framework arguments in a meaningful way because they become lenses for evaluating everyone's impacts organically.

Consider informing me what my ballot does, and how I should evaluate the debate in front of us. Help me feel it with the weight and rhythm of your arguments. Be proactive on this front.

I want to be able to use what you said in your last speech to genuinely help me make - and explain - my decision. Spend time on the arguments that you are legitimately going for.

Going too fast is just as bad as going too slow.

Yes, you can ask questions during prep. Yes, open cross-ex is fine.

Please run your own prep time. Please keep track of your own prep time.

I generally think that ethics violation arguments are a time suck, but I could vote on this if you go for it like a real argument - and win - instead of treating the violation like a forgone conclusion.

Email chain is preferred for sharing cards. I may ask for you to send key cards from your last rebuttal.

Email: mattc743@gmail.com

Most of all, just try to have fun.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coatesdj@gmail.com

2024-5 rounds (as of 1/11): 43

Aff winning percentage: .535

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name)

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Stanford," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Stanford matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about border security to "Stanford." "According to Professor Dirzo of Stanford" (yes, he is THE expert on how border controls affect wildlife) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Stanford" and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League or equivalent scholars. I've never heard an "according to the University of Arizona" citation from any of you even though that's the institution doing the most work on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases.Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

About me:

Prior to graduating in 2024 I was the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate program where I now serve as an assistant coach. I have competed in like,, every standard forensics event under the sun at one point or another. My home base in middle/high school was PF, and now is NPDA/NFA-LD. My true love is interp events, but that is nine times out of ten not why you are here lol

Speechdrop > an email chain if possible, email is at the bottom of my paradigm for chains though

Your case:

TLDR - Run what you want, and show me you know what you’re doing

I’m happy with both trad and progressive rounds. I’m originally from a trad circuit, and I’ll never get bored of a trad round done well. However, as I got to college I found a love for performance and res Ks. You should run whatever kind of case suits you best, as long as you make sure all arguments are well developed (trix are generally not well developed, fyi).

Disclosure theory is boring and lame, so are T shells made to be kicked, but do what you must.

On T- I am VERY hesitant to vote on the possibility of “abuse” in round, much safer for me if you can warrant and prove from your first speech how/why your theory is important.

PLEASE GIVE ME FRAMEWORKS! I want to know how you are evaluating, and more importantly I want you to tell me how to be evaluating. I enjoy good FW clash but don’t like when I am at the end of a round and neither side really warranted out their framing, or just let 2 counter interps exist all the way until the end. Make it concise, tell me what FW is best, and tell me how you are doing it (or prove how you win both framings to make me very happy).

Arguments that are in any way discriminatory (ie racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, transphobic, etc) are always going to lose and give you low speaks.

In-round:

Debate jargon is appropriate and has its place, try your best to explain as you go for accessibility but in a crunch know that I am with you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me, but make sure you are using it to tell me the order of your speech, nothing more.

I was a speedy debater and am comfortable with most spreading, but the round should only be going as fast as everyone participating is comfortable with. Never feel bad asking for what you need to understand the round and create better arguments. Also you will see a hit in speaker points if you share your case and rip through 30 pages in 5 minutes without anyone understanding unless they read along, that’s not what this activity is for.

On content warnings: a lot of content that always requires a warning is unnecessary in round anyway, or is simply unnecessary as they are brought up consistently under a given res. Don't give a graphic depiction of violence to get your point across. Using them for things like "feminism" can certainly become trivializing. Exercise good judgment, talk to your coach, use them when necessary.

I won’t flow cross, so make sure to bring up important points in your rebuttals!

Make sure you’re engaging! There are a lot of technicalities in debate, but it is ultimately, fundamentally, a game of persuasion. Good argumentation can always make up for less than stellar speech, but having the best of both worlds can almost guarantee you my undivided attention, and probably the win.

Run fun cases, create good clash, slay your speeches, and over all else, be a nice person. The fastest way to get high speaks from me is to be the person that promotes fairness, accessibility, and kindness in the debate space.

Feel free to ask questions after round or send me an email! I am always happy to talk about forensics. (coltrainzm@appstate.edu)

Hello,

My paradigm is Tabula rasa- a blank slate.

As a former policy debater in high school and college I am most familiar with the language and theory used in policy debate.

For me Debate is sport, an educational tool, and fun activity that strengthens the mind and listening skills and is a great way to learn and share research and ideas.

My experience judging is mostly in policy and public forum, and I teach debate to my students informally as needed.

I have a ruby degree of distinction in the National Forensic League

Thanks for reading this, good luck, peace out! Looking forward to helping out here!

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history, and public policy. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Email me if you have any accessibility concerns before round.

My paradigm is too long. If you are just doing a trad/JV/Novice round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.

TRAD>TOPICAL Ks> THEORY> NON TOPICAL Ks> ANYTHING ELSE

WEIGHING❤️-

• Weigh early and intentionally. Be creative and comparative rather than just namedropping STIMP.

• I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.

SPEED ❤️-

The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be. I don't want to flow absurd spreading nor will I flow off a doc (send docs tho they make me happy)

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

• Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
• I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
• Make explicit strategic choices. I want to see you collapse and build a late round narrative. If you choose your path to the ballot with a minute left in final you probably won't win.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. Feel free to run whatever, but my threshold for DTD/DTA gets high when theory gets frivolous.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am an okay judge for these as long as you explain your lit well.

The Non Topical K

I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I just need a really valid reason as to why you are choosing not to be topical in the K.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are needlessly complex. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is hard for me to vote.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been). I love answering questions and will stick around as long as I can so don't be afraid to ask.

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

I competed in Public Forum and some Interp/Speech at J.P. Taravella High School. Judged my last year before returning to it in late 2022.

Generally, I am a flow judge. I'll plot the arguments, whether they've been successfully turned, refuted, defended, and carried throughout the round and vote on my observations therein. However, I place heavy emphasis on linkage between arguments, impacts, and the topic. If you can weave into your case an argument that systematically demonstrates how the resolution's chain of events leads to an impact, it will be hard to dissuade me, and I find that the line-by-line argumentation defending or refuting that linkage can lead to a wonderful clash/debate.

I've been frustrated by poor judge feedback in the past and I've made it a point to use my flow to point out missed opportunities, places where the argument may be improved, and leaving no room to contest as to why I decided a round. The care I aspire to put into a ballot means I've got to spend some time on it and organize my thoughts, so it's unlikely that I can explain my reason for my decision immediately after the round's end, but I may try :).

Debate was formative for me. I hope it is for you, too. Have a good debate!

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have three seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas a little. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

I am a parent judge. I have a background with solid science research training, and have some judgement experience but not a expert. Therefore, the following things I would like to consider are

1. I will focus on evidence and logic that support your arguments. My judgement mainly is based on these two aspects. Besides, your presentation conciseness and clarity will help me to judge the arguments.
2. Spreading will not be tolerated.
3. Truth is over tech and what that means is that the truth always wins. Honesty is the bottom line.
4. Please do not run any complex jargons, I am not familiar most of them. They will make me harder to understand what you are saying.
5. Please respect your your opponents and do not use any harmful/offensive language.

I am looking for debaters to engage in constructive dialogue, present well-reasoned arguments, and address the key issues of the resolution. I expect both teams to adhere to the rules of Public Forum debate, including maintaining respectful conduct, avoiding spreading, and staying within the time limits.

I will be evaluating the quality of arguments based on their clarity, relevance, and strength of evidence. I expect debaters to provide clear definitions of key terms, establish logical frameworks for their arguments, and support their claims with credible sources. I will pay close attention to how debaters engage with their opponents' arguments, including the ability to rebut and refute effectively. Key point for me is WEIGHING, don't forget to weigh your arguments.

Debaters should strive for clear and organized speeches, with well-structured content that is easy to follow. I value effective use of signposting, transitions, and summaries to ensure that arguments are presented coherently and comprehensively. Additionally, debaters should maintain good speaking demeanor, including strong vocal delivery, eye contact, and appropriate gestures.

In the final focus speeches, I expect debaters to crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why their team has won the debate. I will base my decision on which team has provided the most compelling arguments, effectively refuted their opponents, and best upheld their burden of proof. I will strive to provide constructive feedback to both teams, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

I encourage all debaters to approach this round with professionalism, respect, and a willingness to engage in meaningful discourse. Remember to focus on the substance of the arguments rather than personal attacks or rhetoric. Good luck to both teams, and let's have a productive debate!

I am a parent judge.

You do not need to change your style of speaking, but would appreciate you to avoid spreading.

Please avoid using too much technical/ theory stuff, as it will be lost on me. If you do, explain it in short.

I do not take notes, so please do mention if your opponent drops an argument.

I award points based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself during the entire debate.

I prioritize technical arguments over stylistic delivery. My focus is on substance, so well-constructed arguments, logical analysis, and clear impacts will weigh more heavily than presentation. My background in public forum debate shapes my approach to judging. I’m accustomed to evaluating arguments within a framework of accessible logic. This means I look for clear impacts and strong evidence. PF has taught me to focus on comparative weighing; if you’re not doing the work to tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent’s, I’ll default to evaluating them as they stand

My son considers me a “lay judge”. I like logical arguments, but that doesn't mean it has to be a common argument (in fact, I like a variety of arguments because it spices up the debate).

For your debate, please do not “spread”; speak at a normal pace so I can understand. I listen to cross, but I do not vote what happens in cross unless you can’t defend case. Since I am listening to crossfire, it will play a role on how many speaks I will give you. I will give feedback and explain why I voted for a certain team after the round is finished. If I am judging an online debate tournament, I expect debaters to send me a speech doc for constructive AND rebuttal before you begin speaking to yang_wang1@hotmail.com because it helps me follow arguments easier. (use saved attachments or paste into the email content, NO google docs share please)

Time your opponents’ speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames. I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times or I will deduct speaks. I take notes. Good luck.

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

Hi all, Dan here. I'm an active coach in PF and a long term member in the WSDC realm. This will be short and sweet:

Delivery and Language: Speak as fast as you want as long as it's clear to all members of the house. Technical language/jargon is fine as long as very specific, professional terminologies are explained (going back to making it clear for all members of the house.)

Argument and Style: As an average intelligent voter (which is what all judges are supposed to be,) objective ideas that are warranted for are most important for the house, further delivered through with your own style. Substance without style is dry but full. Style without substance is flowery but empty. Finding the right balance between both is crucial in delivering a persuasive speech.

Expectations: Debate is a sport and long term members know that it is, if not, the hardest sport out there--and everybody is in this together. This means that both sides needs to be respectful to each others ideas, professional in their speech, and avoid any sort of discriminatory, harmful language. I take ethical violations seriously.

Judging: At the end of the day, it all comes down to which world is better, either Prop or Opp. To judge wholly, a holistic review of all points will be the main standard. This means that biting the bullet on certain issues while still recognizing and strengthening key issues within the house will almost always mean that your world looks better (in most cases.)

Ending this on a final note, I have no such thing as a preference for what type of points, for which side of the house, and for any other items one side of the house may lean to. After all, judges are meant to be impartial, without bias, and evaluative, void of personal opinions. As an educator as well, I'm here for you to ask for advice and feedback. Debate is also a place to grow and seeing you all try your best to do so is all of our best winnings.

Dan.

I am a parent judge, so please refrain from spreading too much. Thank you!