Katy Cats Swing TFA
2025 — Katy, TX/US
LD/PF - Online Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideWelcome! This will be my first-time judging, please be respectful and speak with clarity. Debate is not my area of expertise, so please use simple verbiage and elaborate your topic in simple terms. Thank you!
** side notes from judge
DEBATE:
Speed
I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.
Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.
Speaker Points
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round
**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
Good luck Contestants.
Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com
Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.
I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it.
High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable.
Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.
Background: Coach of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 3rd year as Coach, 10th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.
IE Paradigm
Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, etc.).
PF/LD Paradigm
- My students say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.
- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.
- I do not know or particularly care about theories/kritiks, nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head. If you want to ask beforehand if you can read this theory or that, assume that I will say no and just leave it at that.
- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.
- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.
- Don't get too lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.
- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.
- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.
- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).
- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.
- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.
Hi I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and at a moderate pace, in other words NO SPREADING. Remember to signpost and clearly explain your arguments and extend them as well. I recommend that you lay out the ballot for me in the last speech and heavily weigh your arguments. Please maintain respect and good sportmanship throughout the round and most importantly have fun!
Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27
Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD
send docs - greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com - make the email chain name descriptive ie. Tournament Name Round X Flt X - Team 1 [AFF] vs Team 2 [NEG]
---
Be a decent human being.
To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names. 60/40 on the question of paper vs laptop. I never flow from the doc. However, I will randomly choose to follow along in the doc for clipping. You will like my decision more if you slow down. I am very expressive if I am confused.
Tech >>> truth, but your speaks are mine. I strive to make decisions without intervention, if I must intervene I will vote for the team that requires less. The more you implicate arguments & do judge instructions the more happy you will be with my decision.
Post-rounding is good. If I make a decision you disagree with, please ask questions. It makes the activity better and forces judges to pay attention.
Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else (preferably a coach) is cc'ed for safety reasons).
You can insert rehighlightings of cards read in the debate and perm texts. Please note, that inserting 10 rehighlightings in a row does not lend itself to me getting the nuances of your arguments on my flow.
Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments, I believe this to be as true for disadvantages as much as I do for one-line blips.
I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.
Evidence quality matters a lot, if cards are highlighted like poems, please point it out.
There is not a flow clarification section in debate, take prep or cx.
---
DA/Plan AFFs: I usually start these debates with impact calc/direction of turns case. Explain how arguments interact / what it means to win broad theoretical claims. Err on the side of overexplaining dense econ things.
CP: Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative. 1AR deficits should be tied to impacts. Counterplan theory as the 'A Strat' never makes much sense to me. I would much rather see theory debates as competition debates.
K: Middle of the road in these debates. Framework debates are a question of models. I will decide the framework debate as a yes/no question and not a middle ground---this makes the framework page (regardless of which side you are on) very important in front of me. I am good for K tricks as long as they are made clear in earlier speeches.
T: Caselists matter a lot to me. Make sure you extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation. Weighing between standards usually decides these debates in front of me. I am pretty bad for 'reasonability' absent judge instruction, implicating thresholds for what offense matters, etc.
Theory: I lean negative on most forms of CP theory as a general statement but given the state of LD, I will happily vote on condo/other theory arguments if well-executed/well-developed. The more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to look for ways to vote against you, the more sympathetic I am to reasonability, and the worse your speaks will be.
Tricks/Frivolity/Phil: I would rather not, not because I am inherently predisposed against these positions to the point of not voting on them, but because I have simply not been in these debates in any meaningful way (as a debater or as a judge). This manifests in a few ways, 1. I do not have shorthand when flowing these debates as I do in every other style of debate. 2. I am less familiar with the implications of arguments/how arguments interact with each other. 3. I have not thought meaningfully about these debates. This means without judge instructions, examples, and slowing down - the odds of you liking your speaks & the decision is so so low.
Speaks: I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. I give a decent amount of low point wins, this usually stems from one of 3 issues: lack of debaters resolving arguments/judge instruction in a way that makes me intervene, lack of clarity/delineation between arguments, or major strategic blunders in other portions of the debate.
Debating Novices/People with Less Experience: You should do what you need to do to win the debate, but make the debate as accessible as possible ie. slow down, explain things, be nice, etc. If you are clearly ahead either go for the winning argument and sit down or have a debate your opponent could engage with. I am uninterested in hearing 6 minutes of a K that was dropped.
Online Debate: I have no preference between camera on vs. off. You should locally record speeches in the event you cut out. The less I think you are stealing prep the better.
Ev Ethics: I would rather exist in a world where evidence ethics is not used as a case neg. If someone is reading miscut evidence and you notice it before the debate, email them about it. If there is purposeful manipulation of evidence I will happily vote on it, but making a mistake in the citation or a link not working seems to be something that you can communicate before the debate.
Greetings. I am a parent judge, and this is my first time serving in this capacity. I kindly request that you present your arguments clearly and articulate them at a pace that is both slow and loud enough for me to follow effectively. Please avoid excessive spreading or rapid speech.
I evaluate logical arguments and evidence equally, but providing additional evidence is a significant advantage. I prioritize content over style in my deliberations. I will make every effort to judge based solely on the information presented during the round, so I encourage you to ensure all key points are clearly communicated.
Please be mindful of managing your own speaking time during the debate. I will not be keeping track of the time for you, so it is your responsibility to ensure you stay within the allotted limits. Please time yourselves.
Best of luck to all participants.
-New to judging/ Parent Judge.
Please don't spread/speak fast.
Do not use Debate Jargon as I wont understand it.
Explain the topic and try to not use acronyms such as GPC, rather just say the full name.
Be respectful, and concise.
Hello, my name is Falak Malik. My son participates in PF Debate so I understand the format of speeches and times. Please keep track of all times. I cannot understand any speech over 200WPM. Please keep all speeches coherent and clear, you are not as clear as you think online. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGN POST AND GIVE ROAD MAPS BEFORE SPEECHES AFTER CONSTRUCTIVE!!! I am a lay judge after all. You can control crossfires with respect, otherwise disrespect = speaker points. I am okay with open crossfires as long as they do not become abusive and that one partner does not answer / give questions every cross. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY KRITIKS OR THEORY AND KEEP IT FLAY AT MOST. I understand most arguments as long as the link chain is clear and not messy (i.e. do not link recession with nuclear war and claim Starr 15 is the best card to exist)
I am a parent judge, I would prefer traditional form of the debate.
Please don't spread, if I don't understand it I will not weigh it.
I would appreciate if your arguments are structured and rather than being chaotic.
I would prefer that your arguments are not solely evidence based and make sure there is some form of explaining.
Weighing your arguments and proving why they matter is a clear voter to my ballot.
parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)
speech + congress just do normal stuff lol - lay events should b for lay judges :D
debate - ld + pf
- adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
- cross is flowed :)
- warrant EVERYTHING!!! most people don't know why student loans or smth --> nuke war (it doesn't lol) but point is like debate should b abt explaining so ur judge should like... be able to explain ur arg
- when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
- don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure
- oh and speaks start at 28
have fun!!!! ???? it's not that deep so don't treat it like it is!!!!!!!
(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my mom thats lowk so funny)
[Insert Email Chain Email Here -- Updated per tournament]
Label email chains. Preferred naming convention -- "Newark Invitational R5 F2: Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N TO [NEG]"
-----
TLDR: I don't care what you do. Everyone has a competitive incentive to be here so I trust that I'm seeing your best strategy and thus will respect whatever work you've done. I think my job is to listen/flow and adjudicate. I think your job is not make me sad, win the debate, and then leave having learned something. Both of our jobs should be done as efficiently as possible.
Actual content:
- Do what you gotta do to win. Spreading, fine. Open CX, fine. Flex prep, fine. Inserted rehighlights, fine. K affs, fine. Policy affs, fine. DA 2NR, fine. T 2NR, fine. Theory 2AR, fine. Impact turns, fine. 12 off 1NC, fine. If you have specific questions for me, feel free to ask before the round.
- My speaker point assignments are a mix of your debater-to-debater interactions, your flow, the content of your arguments, and your strategic thinking. I will emphasize here that I think strategic/critical/independent thinking is good, we're in an academic activity omg. Debates get messy and if you are instructing me on the cleanup based on a true conceptualization of what the round is, I will be grateful. If I leave a room thinking "oh man, that kid is smart" or "woah they really incorporated my feedback from before," you will 100% get rewarded more than when I leave a room thinking "oh that kid is good at reciting. maybe they should be in a play."
- I don't want to hear tricks. The way it's read triggers my migraines. This isn't cross-ex or a place for a definition debate. Don't play, you know it means. You're not that guy.
- The truth/tech debate is silly to me. I learned to flow as a HS freshman through watching the fastest of NDT rounds so yes, I'm pretty good at flowing. Sometimes the vibes suck really bad though. Win the flow and don't have bad vibes. If you have a frame/lens at which I should look at my flow, then win that first and then do whatever else.
- On this ^, I do not flow off of the doc. I will say "clear" or "slow" and I have no shame about recommending speaking drills when the debate is over.
- Non-traditional rounds are fine. Just agree on what my role is so I can vote in-line with that and get back to my de-babies.
Temitope as a person things:
- Be good people. I've seen a lot of tears shed in my day and the only standard thing I could offer across the board was tissue from a teachers desk and ice cream spot recommendations. Hopefully at least the tissues will be unnecessary.
- Do not try to appeal to me as a person, I'm but a soulless body forced by the entourage rule to adjudicate. But seriously, I don't like the judging aspect of debate, just the coaching/teaching/human interaction pieces (which is why my favorite parts of any debate are cross-ex and my RFD). BUT BUT don't treat this as an invitation to also be soulless. If you act like you don't want to be there my ears are going to close as a function of evolutionary defenses built up against being bored to death and your speaker points will suffer.
-- Paradigm
Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research (from any part of the library) rather than theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.
-- Biography
he/him
School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)
Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit)
I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.
Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021.
Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.
-- Logistics
The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.
Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".
The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".
If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.
-- Misc
I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.
Parent Judge-
Spreading; temperate spreading is fine.
Be respectful.
Good luck!
Parent Judge - please speak slowly and explain your arguments well
About Me - UT'28 - Gov and Humanities (Double Major),CX Debater - UT Austin
Credentials -I went to TFA Texas State Championship in both 2023 and 2024. I went to NCFL National Championship in 2023. I specialize and am experienced in PF as this is my event for these tournaments.
Overview -I will not tolerate anyone being purely disrespectful. While I am a Tech judge, I can be very lay. I am tech>truth. I will not do the work for you so make your links as clear as possible and explain all arguments you want me to consider when making my final decision. While I know speed can be useful please refrain from spreading WITHOUT A SPEECH DOC, If I can't understand you I will not flow it. I will give you two warnings before dropping my pencil. Debate is an event based upon communication so communicate clearly. Use prep time wisely and you have a grace period of one sentence.
Framework + Case Structure -I will evaluate the framework given by both teams. If only one team offers a framework and there is no clash or framework given by the opposing team, I will judge based on the framework given. I expect clear and concise contentions that should be easy to follow and flow.
Flowing + Clash -I will flow all contentions and subpoints plus evidence, AGAIN IF YOU ARE TOO FAST OR UNCLEAR, I WON'T FLOW. Any evidence you want specifically considered or any arguments please continue to emphasize throughout the round. You must carry your arguments throughout the round otherwise I will consider them to be dropped. I am fine with theory cases. CLASH on all arguments and provide offense plus defense. I will evaluate all case turns and I am fine with you collapsing similar arguments.
*When extending, don't just say, "Please extend Wagner 23." Instead, say what exactly am I extending. For example, say, "Please extend Wagener 23, which shows xyz."
*I have judged tricks and kritiks but they are a little hard to follow so be clear and make them understandable*
Cross Ex - Please use Cross Ex wisely. Try to refrain from making arguments but rather set traps to exploit in speeches. I will evaluate Cross Ex. While I do know Cross Ex can get heated, refrain from being disrespectful. If something is mentioned in cross but not brought up again I will consider it dropped.
FF -Make it clear what I am voting on. Weigh throughout rounds but especially in FF. IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. When I vote I need to know what happens when I vote AFF vs when I vote NEG or vice versa. Basically, why should you win, and why they should not.
WORLDS - I will evaluate the two best arguments in the round and compare them and that will win my ballot. You can drop args in the round but the one you collapse on needs to outweigh and have stronger links than the other team's strongest arg. Presentation matters just as much as argumentation. My flow and clash + framework and case structure cross-supply to worlds as well.
LD - I have never judged LD before so please no spreading as I am a flow judge, but like lay appeal. Be careful with the type of arguments you run as I am not super familiar with heavy K's and tricks around the circuit. Substance would be your best bet, but do what it takes to win the round. My PF rules still apply and treat me like I am a flay judge.
Congress - Please use heavy lay appeal and very humanitarian impacts, and be clear, concise, and profound when speaking. Ask good questions that interact with your speech and opponents and be ready to think on your feet when asked. Middle speeches should clash and the last third should combine clash and summarizing. Overall I am not super techy with congress but please try not to bore me.
Any other questions feel free to ask. (Yes put me on email chains - Devon.stevenson08@gmail.com)
*NOTE - I HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THE NEW TOPIC - TREAT ME LIKE I'M CLUELESS*
Contact Info (please add me to email chain):
Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org
Facebook: Neville Tom
Paradigm:
Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.
Main things:
1) Don't do any -isms
2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches
The affirmative should read a plan. The neg should disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or a competitive alternative are preferable or the plan is not topical.
I will not vote for the kritik. I am uninterested in judging debates unrelated to the agreed upon topic.
”Conditionality bad” is a self-report for teams incapable of answering arguments efficiently and effectively. I will not vote for it.
If equally debated, I’m likely to conclude functional alone is a less desirable vision of competition than functional and textual.
Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.
Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.
Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge
*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob
General
E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com
With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.
DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.
CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.
Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.
K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.
If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.
1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.
2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.
3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.
4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.
____________________
Other notes:
Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.
Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.
Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.
Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.
Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...
Open CX is okay with me.
Tech > Truth most of the time
No Tricks
ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.
PF Specific Notes
I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.
Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.
For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner blippy arguments unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.
Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.
If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.
IE
All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.
Hi, i'm a parent new to judging.
Debate-
Slight spreading is okay as long as you're clear enough to understand- I don't really know how to flow off doc so make sure I can hear every argument you make.
SIGNPOST!!
Crystalizing is super important for me since im not familiar with flowing.
(For CX)Please run easy-to-understand off-cases since things like K's might fall short on me.
Speech/Extemp-
Be clear and give it your best!
(Paradigm written by my kid)
For LD:
Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.
Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.
Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..
Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.
Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.
Speak in conversational speed. Please do not spread.
Focus on presenting the best information within the limited time, not the most amount of information.
Be concise and to the point, use supportive information selectively. This will help me understand your argument and reasons behind it.
Turn your camera on. Use proper body language, avoid provocative gestures or expressions.