E

Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student

Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.

Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.

Flex prep: I don't like it.

Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.

Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.

Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.

Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.

I'm open to any arguments as long as they are run well and make sense, but will not grant you the argument if you do not execute it well. I’ve done XC, PF, LD and Congress so I am comfortable with all sorts of styles of debate, speed, and ideas.

Something that I specifically value is warranting arguments. It is extremely hard for me to vote you up if you cannot explain your evidence to me. For me to evaluate the argument, the team must explain to me why the facts are important in context to the debate, and how they were derived. Logical and analytical arguments are all fair game, and much appreciated. With that being said, if you want me to evaluate a decision based on important pieces of evidence, make sure you keep referencing the evidence and highlight it throughout the debate.

Because I am a very flow judge, make sure you extend arguements from the rebuttle, to the summary, and finally, to the final focus or else it is very hard for me to evaluate the arguement as a reason to vote for you. 

Apart from that, I’m quite lenient in terms of theory as long as it is fair to the other team; usually if there are three or more conditional arguments, I’ll consider a vote for theory.

I don't flow cross-ex, but use it to persuade me. If an arguement arises from the cross-ex, make sure you repeat it in your speech. 

Also, there's no need to extend your case in the rebuttle. The rebuttle is only for rebutting the opposing case. 

As for speed, as long as both sides are okay with spreading, so am I. Just make sure you slow down during the analytics, taglines and framework! 

Green Valley High School- Nevada

            2 Years Lincoln Douglas

            2 Years Public Forum

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD for two years of my high school career.

Speed: I do not mind speed but please be clear, If I cannot understand you; I will not flow you.

Framework: Highly important, state points clearly.

Cross-X: I do not flow cross-x, but I do pay attention to what happens. That is time for you to figure out and exploit weaknesses in your opponent’s case. If something important pops up during that time, tell me during your speeches.

Other things: One thing that I judge the most off of is the warrants offered during the round. Give me concrete and clear reasons why you either won an argument or the round (if you feel the need to say it).

I do allow flex prep, but do not abuse it.

Do not attack your opponent as a person, that’s just being a jerk. Clash with your opponent should be clear, civil, and well warranted.

Actually follow/adjust to a paradigm. That's why they are there.

Any other questions, feel free to ask me.

Have fun!

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

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.

Overview

I flow everything that I hear and am able to understand excluding cross, so speed is not a problem to the extent that you annunciate and are clear, but if you get garbled and i can't understand you it will not end up on the flow.

LD:

Did PF in HS but have been judging both consistently for the 4 years. I'm always down for some progressive debate but be very explicit if your running progressive vs traditional b every explicit on why your theory outweighs or like keeps them in some ethical violation because I see no problem in voting for that, however, always try and run some solvency with it to prove that like you break out of the same problem. Other than that, I'm down for anything really.

In regards to speed, I'm fine with it, however, slow down on taglines, authors, contention titles and any analysis that you deem important for the round. If you become extremely unclear I will say clear. In weighing the round I think framework is very important to the round, and I want to ensure that you as a debater understand and actually link into it. If you don't you will get dropped so ensure that you have a clear reason and tell me why you link into your theory, and if you perm their's or any of their contention tell me why, don't just say it fits in my framework unless it's blatantly obvious. It is therefore it is imperative that you understand I ALWAYS weigh framework/Roll of Ballot is the first to be evaluated.

I'm down for anything really run whatever you feel comfortable with, but ensure that you actually understand. I try to be as tab as possible, so I'll vote for something if you give me enough legitimate backing for the argumentation. The Major Key to picking up my ballot is spending the last 30ish seconds of your last speech to breaking down and giving me voters. ALSO NEVER EVER FORGET EXTENSIONS, I WILL NOT EXTEND FOR YOU, IF YOU DROP IT, IT IS DROPPED.

PF:

Rebuttal: I don't like lazy debate its bad, that being said you have to give me a reason why I should accept your contention over theirs not just because the tags are different. In your rebuttal if you don't give me a reason to value your information/data whatever it may be I have no reason to.

Summaries: I need argument selection. Otherwise, the entire flow falls apart and I will be sad. Tell me why y'all are winning the arguments you choose and why they are important. If an argument was extended in neither summary, it isn't evaluated at the end of the round. Kicking out of arguments in the summary is strategic and I'll be very happy if you do it well.

Final Foci: My decision is based on the final focus, but the final focus must only include arguments extended through summary. Extending offense last mentioned in the rebuttal will make me sad and I won't evaluate them. Weighing your voters / strat is *hella* important. If you don't weigh in the final focus, you forfeit your right to complain if you lose (although you should never complain about your losses).

Specifics

Extensions: Extending through ink does nothing for me. Answer the responses, otherwise, it's like you never made the extension in the first place.

Evidence: I genuinely believe that the fabrication of evidence is what ruins debate as an academic activity. I will call for evidence after the round has ended only when there's a significant dispute throughout the round or when I'm asked explicitly in a speech to do so. If there is legitimate abuse of evidence, you're getting dropped with probably 0 speaks. Don't make me do this.

Speaker Points

- I don't mind giving a low-point win.

- Speaker Points will be based upon these things:

Clarity, Confidence, Content

I believe that this is a communication event, not a spewing event. You are trying to convince me of your side, not your opponant, so explain your side to me at a reasonable speed as convincelingly as possible. I like to see actual logic, not just "he ran out of time to address this so my totally illogical argument or framework must flow through". 

In terms of standard judging paradigms, I consider myself a policy maker judge. Clearly explain how your plan solves and my vote is yours. That being said, if you decide to run a kritik, please understand it in its entirety. If you don’t understand your kritik, don’t run it; it wastes everyone’s time. Although I don’t prefer to hear topicality debates, I understand that there are times when you encounter an affirmative case where you have no answers. If you can prove that they are truly not affirming the resolution, I will vote on topicality. Use your rebuttals wisely. Don’t repeat arguments from your constructives; take them one step further and tell me why you deserve my vote. Make smart arguments, be logical and don’t bullshit.

I am a lay judge from Arizona with three years experience judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I base my decisions on the cases, cross examinations and rebuttals presented by the competitors. I do not finish cases, refute evidence or drop points for you. I rarely ask for evidence unless I suspect shenanigans. Please make your own, complete, cohesive case and clash with your opponent. Keep in mind, the farther you stretch your links, the more likely you are to lose me. I prefer elegance over cleverness.

I enjoy LD as the best forum to engage value-based debate without a presumed burden or the need for detailed plans. As such, I feel many of the progressive strategies of Policy debate often become unnecessary tricks and gimmicks in LD. I'll accept theory and kritics, but I still expect topical clash. A debater using a K accepts the burden that comes with an a priori discussion, handicapped by the lack of speaking time allowed in Policy. It's a gamble.

I accept speed. However, I find it lacks elegance and it's unpleasant. Please don't speak faster, just speak less. Economize. Using speed won't hurt your case, (unless I miss something), but it will hurt your speaker points.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Key Considerations:

• Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.

• Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.

• Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.

• In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

• This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

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.

Biography:

I did too much ofPF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.

Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth

I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.

Growing List of Pet Peeves:

• Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
• I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
• Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
• I make faces, I'm sorry.
• In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
• I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
• I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
• Please be kind to your opponents.
• Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
• Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
• Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
• To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
• Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
• I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).

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

Ask for paradigm upon entering round 

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

In 2 years of competing in intercollegiate forensics I participated in both Loncoln-Douglass and parlimentary debates and have won awards in platform events such as improptu and persuasive speeches. Beyond competing as a student, I have been judging a wide variety of events regularly since 2011. As a judge I prefer cases that can provide solvency and present the most logical evidence ethically and convincingly. I also prefer that the speakers communicate clearly and avoid speed reading. 

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

I'm a flow judge so if I don't know where you are getting your info from or organization is terrible I won't be able to flow it and those arguments will have no impact in the debate so it just becomes a waste of time.

Fw is awesome so people should use it because I love it and it lessens the work that I have to do so make sure fw is flowed throughout the debate.

Impact calc is something I also like so pls do it. 

Speed is chill unless clarity is lost and I can't understand what your saying which leads to me not flowing. (See Impact of this above)

CX

I don't flow it so if anything important happens reference it in a speech. 

Time

I suck at time signals so you should time yourselves. 

Keep track of your own prep time because if you ask me how much you have left I will also have no idea. 

Judge.

The philosophy of Sherry Smith:

Criteria Used to Judge Debate Rounds

A. Burden of Proof

Which side has proven the resolution more valid as a general principle based on reliable evidence.

B. Valid Structure

Is there a clear stance with valid points.  Which side came across with the most just. Are sources quoted reliable or based on personal opinion.  

C. Argumentation

Which presenters debated better using logical appeals, strong evidence, and steered clear of logical fallicies.

D. Clash

Rounds should be conducted in a professional manner, thus screaming and degrading opponents with facial expresssions is uncomfortable and considered bullying.  The team that shows a legitimate ability to attack the other teams case and logically defend their own case understands the art of persuasion. 

Other areas considered but not limited : delivery, speech control, timing, debaters understanding of the topic, use of rhetorical devices, and strong openings and closings.

About me:

- I debated policy 4 years at James Logan High School, mostly on the circuit

- I now coach and judge intermittently

My feelings towards certain positions:

T and Theory

Outline an abuse story. Defend a world interpretation.

Disad/Case

Weigh worlds. Explain link stories. I will vote on terminal non uniqueness.

Counterplans

Textual competition counts as competition. Win a net benefit.

The K

Explain the alt. Be extremely clear with framework. Explain the role of the ballot. Embed clash and make comparisons in your overviews.

Pofo

Be respectful. Arguments in the final focus need to be in the summary, warranted. Weighing should start in the summary. Don't be unreasonably omitting defense in the first summary.

Speaks

If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks. If you're good for debate, you'll get better speaks (s/o Phoebe Kuo).

Miscellaneous

You can try to earn +.1 speak for making @four_pins -esque jokes.

Hi,

Competed in lay policy/pf. Qualified to TOC in pf senior year. If you use jargon, please explain it. Please do not spread.

Recommended practice for calling for evidence: Ask to see evidence before your next speech/after crossfire or partner can hand over evidence during crossfire.

If it takes longer than a minute, I will assess prep time to the team calling for the evidence.

Likes: Narrative in final focus, clear speaking style, back and forth during crossfires, weighing/crystallization of important arguments in summary/final focus

Dislikes: Blippy one line responses, evidence presented without analysis, misconstruing evidence, shaking hands with debaters (only because I don't want to get sick)

Your best bet with me is to refrain from speeding. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen. The best and most effective speakers are those that can present a logical argument and back it up with relevant evidence, then point out the reason(s) their opponents' cases are not as strong.

I don't appreciate people who blatantly lie and claim that opponents have failed to address points when they clearly have. Denying reality may work for politicians, but I don't much care for politicians, so don't try it with me. Tell me WHY your case is stronger, don't make empty claims. 

I lean left, but I respect anyone with solid research and logical reasoning. Alaska tends to be very traditional, not a progressive circuit, so that is what I am used to hearing. A more progressive case may not be as effective with me as it is with others. 

Keep it clear, concise, and comprehensible. 

I competed in Public Forum for 4 years (2011 - 2015) and earned 3 TOC bids my senior year. I'm currently a freshman in college. 

Theory / Kritiks: Please save it for the next round. 

Speed: Don't go policy or LD speed because I won't be able to flow all your points. If you have questions about your speed, ask me before the round and I'll have you read some random paragraph to determine if you are speaking too fast. 

Evidence: If you significantly misconstrue evidence, that will play into my final decision. I won't be calling for cards at the end of the round unless a team tells me to look at certain cards. Don't waste too much time arguing over what a card says in round. If you believe your interpretation is correct, just tell me to look at the card immediately after round. 

Clash: I don't want to solely hear premade refutations to contention taglines. Please go line by line and address the specific nuances of the case. 

Framework: It's not enough to just win the framework debate, you also have to show me how your contentions connect to the framework (if you decide to take this path).

Signpost and offtime road maps: I like offtime road maps a lot (keep it under 10 - 15 seconds). In your speeches, always sign post / tell me what contention you are talking about so that I can follow on the flow.  

If you have any questions about any of these paradigms, please feel free to ask me before round. I'm looking forward to judging some awesome rounds! 

Hi, I'm a lay judge without speech and debate experience. Speak clearly. If you talk too fast, I may lose the crux of your argument. Make sure in the end you summarize your strongest points and explain how your side wins and why. Thank you!