I'm currently a policy debater for CSUF. I have 3 years of policy debate experience. I’ve done both traditional and critical debate. Do whatever you want, just make sure you have a clear explanation of what your argument is with a warrant. Emphasize on things you want me to underline or pay specific attention to.

Basics:
Extend arguments. If you bring it up in the 1A/N but it never gets mentioned anywhere else but your 2AR/NR, it's dropped. 

Debate however you want but I don't like unnecessary meanness.

I don't count flashing as prep - don't abuse this.

T/FW
I'm more inclined to vote for FW over T, but if you decide to go for T, make it clear how the AFF is abusive, how it's unfair, and don't run generic T arguments that make you sound whiny. I like a more pragmatic approach to FW and I'm not particularly persuaded by *most* T arguments so be clear. If you encounter critical and performance AFFs, I like seeing engagement with the arguments rather than fixating on how they're not topical. Again, I have voted on T before but going for T in the 2NR isn't your best option in front of me. 


Kritiks 
I'm probably the most well-versed in this area so I tend to lean towards K's more. If you're running a K, know what you're running instead of using it as a filler argument. Have specific links so that there is clash.

Harvard Update:

Slow it down.People are losing speaker points and possibly rounds because they have good ideas in their case that they aren't effectively getting across to their judge, and speed/delivery is the barrier to this.

A Note:

1. Take a breath, remember you're doing this because it's fun, and have a good time with it. All you can control is whether you put your best into the round, and if you truly make your best effort, you should always walk away proud of having done so.

2A. You are responsible for orally communicating your case - I will not read the case to compensate if you are going too fast, and I will not read the entire card to try to understand an idea that was not explained in sufficient detail.

2B. I will read your evidence if there is dispute over it in the round or if there are conflicting cards (usually because of conflicting narratives) and I need to clarify things. At that point, if the card doesn't say what you claim it says, it's not going to be of use to you. Don't "power tag."

Me:

I did debate. I coached a few debate events at different programs/schools. Some would say successfully, as a competitor and a coach. I don't think that's super relevant - I will pay attention and give a meaningful RFD identifying the relevant issues.

My decisions:

I will make my final decision based on whether the arguments you presented lead me to believe the topic is true or false.

Kudos to you if you have creative frameworks that make the debate more interesting and actually narrow the scope of the issues I am supposed to consider when filling in the ballot. There are no consequences if you don't have that - but it does make for a more engaging debate on my end. :)

Some suggestions from past judging experiences:

You need to warrant things. Just stating that something is the most important issue or impact does not make it so - you must justify this.

Additionally, the fact that your can cite an author who is making an unwarranted claim does not change the fact the claim is unwarranted; an unwarranted claim made by someone else is still an unwarranted claim, and not likely to win you a round.

Engage other people's warrants and narratives. Two sides providing me two different scenarios about how a situation plays out without explaining why one scenario is more likely leaves me unable to make an informed decision.

I am listening to cross. You still have to talk about things in your speeches, which is when I'm flowing, but I'm listening for clarification of ideas or important concessions during crossfire and anticipating that you will use those statements in your speeches. Do not assume it doesn't matter.

In my experience, jargon is more likely to hurt you than help you. Regardless, this is an activity about communicating ideas and arguments. If you can get through your speeches without jargon and by presenting in a way accessible to all judges, your speaker points will reflect it.

Again, super irrelevant, but since it gets asked: was a national finalist, state champ, Berkeley semifinalist,Stanford champ, laird lewis semifinalist, more I'm sure I'm forgetting, 10th speaker at ToC (I think, it's been a while);coached some state (CA, AL) and invitational (Stanford, Berkeley, the west coast invites) champs/finalists/semifinalists, teams broke pretty regularly to bid rounds or above at the various invites, helped coach a national champ, yada yada. Really though - please debate like I'm any judge - this is an activity meant for everyone to participate in.

Judge Name: Steven Davidovici

Years competed: 2

School: Spring Valley

Introduction to myself: Hi, I'm an ex competitor for Spring Valley high school who absolutely loved anything LD. I had great success in both LD and DX, and went to nationals for extemp. Anyway, my judging philosophy is very open, and I'll be elaborating on that below.

Do's: (applies for LD, PF, Policy) I am open to near any argumentation you want to throw at me, barring the restrictions in PF. If you want to run a "Biopower K" in an LD round I am all for it, but you better know your Kritik terms, because I will not debate for you on my flow.

• Do be courteous to your opponent, I can understand well warranted aggression in a round but do not go and make ad hominem attacks on your opponent or that will force me to just mark you down entirely.
• Do go over your flow in an organized manner with me, I can understand very fast spreading but try to emphasize your most important  turns, drops, etc.
• Do  tell me how you want the round judged, as in " the role of the ballot is X, and as my judge your role in this round is to vote this way to fulfill the role of the ballot.", I go into every round as close as I can to being a blank page so I will try to look at everything as objectively as possible.
  
• Do approach me and say hello please, its nice to start off a round with a friendly handshake or something along those lines, debate fosters communication not to act like an unfeeling robot.

Dont's

•  DO NOT: Be late, unless your circumstance is absolutely horrific like explosive diarrhea, or a loved one died do not show up to the round late. I detest tardiness in the speech and debate environment.
• DO NOT: Look at your opponent repeatedly, or call them by their name. I went to camp too, and if your camp taught you to try to psyche your opponent out by acting out of bounds then you wasted your money. If i catch you doing this more than twice I will mark you down.
• DO NOT: Do things that you would not do outside of the round, basically just act appropriate please, do not be that guy/girl that your opponent starts some rumor about due to the way you acted in the round, we are all here to first and foremost have fun competing, winning is obviously the first thing on your mind but if you go to lengths so far as to humiliate yourself you are going about it the wrong way.

Congress: I have literally no experience judging this, if you catch me in this event my advice to you is to speak as if you truly believe in what youre saying. That sounds fairly simple but if you get up and act like a slouch I will mark you as one. Furthermore, have evidence near memorized when asked in CX about it, a well spoken rebuttal is your best friend in debate.

*NOTE: Although this has my full judging history to date, I have another profile that I am currently using from here on out. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on that judges page. I apologize for the inconvinience*

General Information About Me

My Experience in Debate: 

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments. 

My Educational Experience: 

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will loose the round. 

My Debate Motto: 

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below. 

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD: 

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as oppose to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

Therefore, specificity is key. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on: 

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am find with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying. 

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round. 

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure: 

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence: 

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. 

Diplomacy: 

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations (say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves. 

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.* 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary: 

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claims with evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves. 

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences: 

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

I competed in PF for Newton South High School in Massachusetts between 2010 and 2014 and coached for St Francis High School in California between 2014 and 2016. However, I consider myself a flow-leaning “flay” judge and I place a huge premium on warranting (meaning, the “why” behind your arguments).

What I’m looking for:

• Framework. You should be telling me how to evaluate the round in every speech. In summary and final focus, reiterate your framework and give me the key voting issues.

• Good warranting. I don’t care if you impact to nuclear winter if the links are weak. And “Smith 2019 says…” does not count as a warrant on its own. Tell me WHY something is likely to happen.

• Respect for your opponents.

Things I’m NOT looking for:

• My number one pet peeve is unethical evidence practices. Shady card-cutting (e.g. with creative ellipses, barely any context, or tiny font sizing for parts you don’t want your opponents to read) is a no-no. If asked, you MUST be able to immediately produce the page preceding and following the part of the evidence from which your cards are cut. Also, it is completely disrespectful to your opponents’ time if they call for a card and you hand them a 50-page paper without telling them where to find what you’re quoting. If that happens, the offending team’s prep time must be used to hunt for the quotation.

(Also note – except in extraordinary circumstances, I will only call for cards that have already been called by teams during the round. It is the primary responsibility of the debaters to evaluate the quality of evidence.)

• Extensive theory. Look, I get it, the rules of PF are in flux and a lot of things fly today that wouldn’t have flown ten years ago. With that said, I’m pretty biased against arguments that rely exclusively on theory, particularly kritiks.

• Spreading. I can flow only slightly faster than the average layperson.

INCLUDE IN EMAIL CHAIN! Ggonzalez0730@gmail.com

Experience:

CSUF policy debate 5yrs (2010-2016)

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League 2yrs (2008-2010)

Currently: Coach and Program Manager for The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

I engaged and debated different types of literature: critical theory (anti-blackness and settler colonialism) and policy-oriented arguments during my early years of debate. I am not very particular about any type of argument. I think that in order to have a good debate in front of me you have to engage and understand what the other team is saying.

My experience in college debate and working with UDLs has taught me that any argument has the ability to or Critical arguments. All of them have a pedagogical value. It’s your job as the debater to prove to me why yours is a viable strategy or why your arguments are best. Prove to me why it matters. If you choose to go for framework or the politics DA, then justify that decision. I don’t really care if you go for what you think I like and if you are losing that argument then it would probably annoy me. Just do you.

Framework vs. Plan less or vague affirmatives

As a critical affirmative, please tell me what the affirmative does. What does the affirmative do about its impacts? If you are going for a structural impact, then please tell me how your method will alleviate that either for the world, debate, or something. I don’t want to be left thinking what does that affirmative does at the end of the 2ar because I will more likely than not vote negative.

I don’t mind framework as long as you can prove to me why the method that you offer for the debate, world, policy, etc. is crucial. Please explain how you solve for "x" harm or the squo goes. I promise you this will do wonders for you in front of me. I will not be doing the work for you or any of the internals for you. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and evidence that is clear, then what I personally believe is meh. You either win the debate based on the flow or nah.

Seems rudimental but debaters forget to do this during speeches.

Clarity

If I can't understand what you're saying when you are speaking, then I'll yell out "clear" and after the second time I yell out clear then I won't flow what I can't understand. I will also reduce your speaker points. I tend to have facial expressions during rounds. If you catch me squinting, then it is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying. Just slow down if that helps.

DA+ Counter Plans

Cp have to have a net benefit.

I need specific impact scenarios--just saying hegemony, racism, global warming, and nuclear war does not win the ballot please explain how we get to that point. I really like when a 2AR gives a good explanation of how the aff solves or how the affirmative triggers the impact.

Make sure to articulate most parts of the DA. just bc you have a big impact that doesn't mean much for me please explain how it relates to the affirmative especially in the rebuttal. impact comparisons are pretty good too.

Theory debates

Not my strong point, but if you are going for this which I understand the strategic reasoning behind this, then explain the "why its bad that X thing" and how that should outweigh anything else. Also, slow down during these debates especially on the interpretation.

Speaker Quirks to watch out for:

Being too dominant in a partnership. Have faith that your partner is capable of responding and asking questions during CX. If you see them struggling, then I am not opposed to you stepping in but at least give them a chance.

Lincoln Douglas

For the most part, my paradigm applies to much of the args made in this sector of the activity a couple of things that you should mindful of when you have me as a judge:

1) I appreciate disclosure, but any theory args that are made about disclosure I don't appreciate, especially if I wasn't in the room to make sure neg/aff accusation are actually being saiD. If I'm not in the room its just a case of "they said I said." If you have it in writing, then I guess I can appreciate your arg more. I would still vote on it, but its not a decision I am happy about.

2) Time: LD leaves a lot of unresolved problems for me as a judge. Please make sure:

aff with plan text *make sure to not forget about the plan solvency mechanism and how you solve for your harms. this should be throughout the debate but especially in the last speeches. I understand there is an issue of time but at least 30 sec of explaining aff mechanisms.

sympathetic towards time constraints but be strategic and mindful of where to spend the most time in the debate. Ex: if you are too focused on the impact when the impact is already established then this is time badly spent.

Negative:

If you are concerned with the affirmative making new arguments in the 2AR have a blip that asks judges not evaluate. Because of the time (6 vs 3min), I am usually left with lots of unresolved issues so I tend to filter the debate in a way that holistically makes sense to me.

DA (Reify and clarify the LINK debate and not just be impact heavy)

T ( make sure to impact out and warrant education and fairness claims)

FEB 2020 NOTES:

1. When you read evidence about UBI being successful and the evidence is from experiments where recipients also received means-tested welfare, you should probably be aware of this when asked by an opponent.

2. Please don't yell at me. I shut down and struggle to listen to what you are trying to communicate when you scream at me in a round.

3. If you need a speech doc to advance your arguments in the round because you are communicating at a speed that alienates people who walk into the room then you should post that case publicly (not an email chain sent in round) prior to the round so the *public* forum can be prepared to debate you without spending their prep time reading a speech doc. Otherwise communicate at a speed accessible to the *public* forum.

Public Forum (Not PoFo - there is no O in Public) Paradigm

1. Framework is not a voter. It's a way to frame voters. Frame them.

2. Both sides will suprisingly win something. It's how those things interact that make the debate. Don't make me figure it out. Weigh. Clash. Give me something to prefer.

3. This may be a shock but I actually expect a debater to respond to the speech right before them. In other words, the second rebuttal ignoring the first means they are AVOIDING ACTUAL DEBATE. The first summary can feel free to then extend and explain why all those drops are important. It is probable that the second team will lose at that point if they forgot to address the first rebuttal's speech.

4. I WILL DROP A TEAM THAT IS UNCIVIL OR PLAYS EVIDENCE GAMES BEFORE EVALUATING THE ROUND. LET'S PLAY NICE IN THIS *PUBLIC* FORUM AND KEEP THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY OF THE ACTIVITY IN TACT!

Have fun. Because if you aren't having fun you are losing. Even if I vote for you.

Amber Jones

University of Nevada, Las Vegas | Foothill High School

I have been on UNLV's policy debate team for two years.

I have four years of experience in public forum from high school.

Please include me on the email chain

Email: jonesa22@unlv.nevada.edu

Quick Version:
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. This is my first year judging policy so my paradigm is still a work in progress.

Long Version:
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions. Keep in mind that debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done.

Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradicting arguments early on in the debate are fine as long as it is narrowed down in the negative block and the 2NR is consistent. Though too many contradicting arguments (3+) will make me more sympathetic to the affirmative.


Affirmative strategy - A good 1AR should attempt to make the 2NR's job difficult by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Just saying “extend our Johnson ’12 card,” does not count as extending the evidence!

Aff- I am open to critical affirmatives that have a relationship to the topic. I have a difficult time voting on an affirmative without a relationship to the topic (as articulated in the round). I will not vote on T/FW just because it was read, it is the burden of the negative to prove to me why that affirmative is not topical or why it shouldn't be run in debate.

Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on critical arguments, as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had experience with a wide variety. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions.


CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan.

Disadvantages- Needs to be as specific as possible to the aff and the link story should make sense. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and how it triggers the impact.

Topicality- All for it, I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue.

Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made.

Few other things-

1. Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
2. Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.
3. Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.
4. Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me some questions before the round.

Former ToC competitor (2009-2012) and Former Coach for The Harker School (2013-16). Been in out rounds and have coached students in outrounds at: Harvard (&RR), Cal Berkeley (&RR), Tournament of Champions, National Tournament, Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Golden Desert, Stanford, and District Qualifiers in multiple states.

Do whatever you want in the round, it’s your debate. Just make sure everyone is being professional and furthering the round to the best of their ability.

I’m not going to do a whole bunch of work for you regarding linking and impact calculus so make sure to clearly articulate your KVIs towards the end.

There’s a good chance I will call for some cards so please make sure to have everything available! (NSDA Nats 23, I’ve seen a lot of teams just create an email thread and send evidence that way. As long as I can still see the evidence either way is fine! My email is Titanpride4949@gmail.com)

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

Students need to speak slowly and distinctly.  Want to see clear framework.

Be respectful of each other.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

I am a parent judge, but I have been judging the National Circuit PF for five years and judged 600+ rounds (including TOC semifinals). I am scientist so if you are making science arguments please make sure you understand the science..

How to win my ballot

• Speak clearly
• Extend arguments- not cards
• Focus the debate to what you are winning
• Keep theory reserved for actual abuse
• Keep Ks in policy
• Keep aliens and zombies for bad movies and out of debate
• Summary in line with final focus
• Be polite
• Have your evidence ready (you have 1 minute)

How to get good speaks

• Make good arguments
• Make good choices
• Don't yell
• Don't argue with me

Pet Peeves

• Arguing with me after the round- I GIVE SPEAKS AFTER I GIVE MY RFD FOR THIS REASON

I am a fourth year philosophy and American studies major at CSUF. I competed in LD debate in high school for two years and competeted in policy debate at CSUF for two years. Most of my college debate experience has been that of critical/performance argumentation, however I’ve also had experience running traditional CP’s, DA’s, T and framework arguments. Because I am more used to making critical/performance arguments my feedback for those types of arguments will be stronger, however that doesn’t mean that I will prefer those arguments over traditional arguments. I judge based on how well each team executes their particular type of argument, and will hold them to their own standards.

I don’t mind any kind of debating (whether this be spreading, a performance, or some other creative way of presenting your case), as long as whatever is done within the round doesn’t cause either physical or emotional harm to anyone. I understand that at times particular arguments can personally resonate with someone and cause emotional harm, however as long as what is said within the round isn’t said with ill-intent I will be okay with it.

I appreciate clarity and in-depth analysis. The less work I have to do as a judge the better it will be for the teams I am judging. Also, I like to be able to easily flow the debate, so sticking to the organization of the the way in which the arguments are being presented is important. Because of my experience as a critical/performance debater, I think that framework is a very good way to test the practicality of any argument being made, especially that of a critical aff. So when seeing traditional teams against critical teams or even k’s against k’s I like to see how the teams justify their framework for the debate, since in essence it’s justifying a particular way of approaching a certain issue, which is essentially what debate does as a community.  

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I believe that Public Forum prepares students to analyze, synthesize and present arguments on sophisticated issues. My priority is for you to learn analytical and communication skills as well as develop into a positive and amiable contributor to the world community. 

1. Don't talk too fast!

Speed-talking is not acceptable in the legislative, legal or business world. You may feel like you have a lot of information to cram into a short amount of time, but it's only effective if your audience can absorb it. You gain more value from developing skills to sort and present information in a concise and accessible form. I will drop my pen and stop flowing if you speak too fast (acceptable speech rate max.=2x as measured by audible e-book narration options).

2. No Rudeness!

You are responsible for fostering an atmosphere of learning and productive discourse. It is not acceptable to unduly interrupt or berate the person debating the other side of the argument.

3. Follow the PF rules

I do not flow evidence in crossfire. Please don't introduce new evidence in the final focus.

4. Weigh impacts to assist me as a judge to know your priorities. It will make it easier to vote for you if you tell me why your argument is important and why it matters more than your opponent's.

5. Enjoy the process!

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

I am a fourth-year PF parent judge from Stuyvesant High School.  I flow the round.  Feel free to motor through your case, but don't spread or I may miss something.  In rebuttal, I expect a specific response to each subpoint of each contention.  In summary and/or final focus, you must extend your voters -- with your evidence -- and give me your weighing mechanism for the round.  Why should I prefer your evidence over theirs?  Write my ballot for me, or you'll be at my mercy.  I generally sit back during cross; if you think you have gained something during cross, you or your partner must reiterate it during a subsequent speech.  Any rudeness, arrogance or unprofessionalism will be reflected in your speaks.  Likewise, clarity of thought and expression will be rewarded.

Framework itself is not an argument, and don't have one if you won't use it.

Any evidence not made readily and fully available to the other team won't be evaluated.

Provide a weighing mechanism, explain why it's preferable to your opponent's (if different) AND actually weigh your arguments or I'll do it for you, and you may not like the outcome.

I flow and will know if you drop things.

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com