Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2019 — AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Allen Abbott Capitol Debate 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 4, 2020 at 2:32 AM PDT

"Back in my day, we only had two minutes to give our summaries!"

Hi I'm Allen and I'm an old third-year out who competed in PF all four years of high school (fun fact: I also competed in DI for three years). In my hey day, Ahana (my former partner) and I cleared at the TOC and a number of other cool nat circuit tournaments. Two years ago, I coached Dalton CY (best team on the circuit don't @ me) and Capitol Debate's travel team. I founded PF Videos and used to be a mod of /r/Debate. I'm no longer involved in debate, sans for judging occasionally.

Outside of debate, I'm a third-year at UChicago studying international political economy with a focus in East Asia, Southeast Europe, and U.S. foreign policy. I judged the NFU topic at Tradition in early November, but I'm not familiar with the "latest arguments" on this topic. I do have a strong academic and professional background in IR and U.S.-China relations. If you're citing international relations theory (anything like MAD or nuclear revolution theory or even realism), I'll probably be familiar with what you're talking about. Biggest issue I've seen on this topic is the lack of warranting, especially on deterrence arguments from the con.

For those of you who had me as a judge previously: I probably haven't changed much. I've probably become a better judge than I was last year because I'm not in deep with the community (i.e. I don't know the top teams on the circuit this year, I don't have hard opinions on how debaters should debate, and I don't personally know the topic arguments or lit, so I will have very few implicit biases walking into the round).

For those of you who haven't had me before, or want a refresher:

1. Tech > Truth. Most debate arguments are BS (we all know it) and I don't have a problem with smart high schoolers coming up with creative or original arguments. I've completely suspended my belief for this tournament.

2. I love argument comparison! This can take the form of (but does not exclude other methods of comparison) doing impact framing/meta weighing. Please don't forget about reading/extending internal links and terminal impacts.

3. My default beliefs for the round are:

a) second rebuttal should frontline

b) first summary should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining if they plan to go for anything from rebuttal in final focus); if second rebuttal doesn't frontline, the first speaking team can extend defense from rebuttal to final focus

c) no new arguments in final focus (unless the first final focus is answering something new in second summary)

d) the judge only calls for cards if their is a dispute over them or a debater tells me to call for them

e) the judge presumes for the first speaking team

But, debaters are always free to read theoretical justifications in the round to tell me otherwise!

4. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

5. I love fast debate, but have Auditory Processing Disorder, which means I sometimes don't immediately comprehend everything I hear during speech. Thus, I may ask for clarifying questions after your speech about a tag or warrant I didn't catch in your speech (I'm not intervening, I'm trying to do the best that I can to give you a fair round). Please give me (and your opponents) a speech doc if you go above 300 words per minute.

6. I start at a 29 for speaker points. Points go up for good strategic decision on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, ghost/no extensions, and bad behavior in round.

If you haven't gathered, I'm a funny (I tell myself this) and sarcastic (other people tell me this) individual. The following is a joke:

I will give you +0.1 speaker points for every TableTote height setting used in round above the first. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out. (this is a joke)

Automatic 30 for a Coke Zero (not a Coke Zero Sugar) or freshly made risotto (recipe below).

Allen's Signature Parmesan Risotto

Ingredients

-3.5 cups chicken broth

-3 cups water

-4 tablespoons unsalted butter

-1 medium onion, finely diced or minced

-2 cups dry white wine

-2 cups Arborio rice

-1.5 cup Parmesan cheese

-Ground black pepper (white pepper, if you're feeling spunky)

-Penzy's Italian Herb Mix (which consists of oregano, basil, parsley, marjoram, thyme, and rosemary)

Instructions

1. Bring the broth and water to a simmer in a large saucepan (I use a Dutch Oven) over medium-high heat. Reduce the heat to the lowest possible setting after the broth reaches its boiling point. Keep on the backburner.

2. Melt the butter in a 4-quart saucepan over medium heat. Once the foaming subsides (DON'T BURN THE BUTTER), add the onion and 1/2 teaspoon of salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onion is very soft and translucent, about 9 minutes. Add the rice and cook, stirring frequently, until the edges of the grains are transparent, about 4 minutes. Add 1 cup of the wine and cook, stirring frequently, until the wine is completely absorbed by the rice, about 2 minutes. Add 3 cups of the warm broth and, stirring frequently, simmer until the liquid is absorbed and the bottom of the pan is dry.

3. Add more of the broth, 1/2 cup at a time, as needed, to keep the pan bottom from becoming dry; cook, stirring frequently (every 1 or 2 minutes), until the grains of the rice are cooked through but still somewhat firm in the center, 10 to 12 minutes. Stir in 1 cup of the cheese and the remaining wine. Season with the herbs, salt, pepper, and additional cheese, to taste (DON'T OVER-PEPPER! WHITE PEPPER IS ESPECIALLY STRONG).

Honestly, debaters focus too much on persuasion through auditory perception. I'd like for there to be a debate event where we use olfaction and gustation as tools for persuasion. However, PF isn't that event, and you probably weren't going to get the kitchen/utensils/wine necessary to make the risotto during a tournament. So, we're back to just debating. But you should try making this risotto! It's very good, and everyone in my residential house in college loves it (except when I over pepper/burn the butter).

Akhil Aji Leland High School 2 rounds

Cade Anderson La Salle HS 4 rounds

Quamrul Arefeen BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Glenn Armstrong McMinnville HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 16, 2019 at 2:07 PM MST

Speech Judging: As the parent of a speech participant I've been judging speech and debate events for a year now. I have found that you guys know what you are doing and do it exceptionally well. I am here to judge, not critique but more to judge how much I have been moved and persuaded, or impressed with the depth of thought that has gone into a piece and how well it has been expressed. I've seen very great performances from confident polished performers and have rated them lower than other performers who, quite frankly struggled but, did better in what appeared to be their ability in providing a more thoughtful piece. So I judge based on the criteria for each event and making sure you follow the rules you are given and after that its all about the beauty depth and thoughtfulness that is in the piece and the performance. In the end it I weigh it up like this.

Rules: Did you follow the rules (20%).

Speaking Skills: Enunciation, speed and pauses, volume (20% +).

Content: Subject and connectivity, can I follow you, does it tie together. Not the quality of the subject but how well it was pieced together, simple points if done right are remarkable (20% +)

Believable: Was there heart and conviction? Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham", actors (not in film) on Broadway, my college Chemisty prof. History prof. Writing prof, and of course my high school lit teacher. All transcended enthusiasm and were what they were speaking. That will get (40%) weight as long as the other 3 were in check or better.

Public Forum Judging: I am the "Public" in Public Forum. I am a parent of a speech(er) and have never done debate myself. I have judged PuFo. since last year and seen the best in the nationals tournament, so I know what is good. That being said I do not know the technical aspect of the "sport" but rather enjoy a good well fought game. I like clear points that are backed by evidence and some common sense. I expect every point or argument to be addressed, if not it flows to the side that brought it up. Of course I won't consider any new argument in the last round that will not be able to be addressed. I go in these with an attitude of "I know nothing". Cross can be a game changer if you are able to show flaw in the others argument and/or it can be just a ho hum time where nothing is gained or lost. Civility counts. I don't mind if you talk fast I can speed listen but make your points clear if you want them to stick.

Speaker points are based on the first round I see of the day. They are usually 27 if they are good, great gets 28. by the end of the 6th round the 27 may be the lowest score of the day or the 28 may have been the best. Again I come in with a clean slate and do my best to compare quality of speaking with the talent of the day. I also look at capability. I have seen debates when the debaters could hardly pick their eyes off their shoes but they spoke so clear and with thought they received high points.

Jaya Atluri The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Anthony Banto Rancho HS 6 rounds None

Arnav Bawa Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM MST

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

Ian Beier College Prep

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Julia Bittencourt Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Katy Bobick Albuquerque Academy 6 rounds

Brian Borders Leland High School 6 rounds

Matthew F Brandstetter Milton Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 3:02 AM PDT

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Andrew Briceno C. Leon King High School 2 rounds

Tristan Brown Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

P)aul Browning Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Julia Bruetsch Westridge School 6 rounds

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 6 rounds

Gregory Buls Gilbert Classical Academy 4 rounds None

Ashley Burt BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Heidi Burt BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Tom Butler Northridge High School None

George Cervantes Paradise Valley HS 1 rounds

Shannon Chamberlain Northridge High School 5 rounds

Akshat Chowksey University School 6 rounds

Michelle Clarke BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Spencer Coben Brophy College Prep 1 rounds

Jordan Cohen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 4:00 AM EDT

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

Nate Conoly Vestavia Hills HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 3:18 PM CDT

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Matthew Corrigan Gilbert Classical Academy 2 rounds None

Jack Crawford La Salle HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 9, 2020 at 3:27 PM EDT

email chain: jackcrawford1825@gmail.com

I debated in HS for 4 years under La Salle NC with 2 quals for the TOC/other nat circ experience.

Holistically I have 8 years of debate experience & there arent many debate args/styled that I haven't had personal experience debating for/against. Currently a mostly K/theory debater in college in VLD.

"Progressive debater"

Speed's cool, don't spread through your tags.

I'm tab.

Post-round me one on one after the round if you really would like to challenge my decision, I won't have an argument with you in front of a room full of people.

Everything here is for LD and below this ( I marked where) I'm slowly making a PF paradigm again because I'll start judging it later in the year.

To avoid an awkward conversation at the end of a round, the perm doesn't work as offence.

NEG:

I think you have the burden of providing specific links and framing your impacts at the end of the debate.

I won't do work on the Baudrillard shell for you for example, it's very important you explicitly say why you're winning what and its implications on the round. Some auths. can stretch farther and in different ways than others but you need to do it explicitly for me to give you credit for that.

TLDR: I won't vote what Baudrillard elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of Baudrillard for example.

AFF:

I'm fine with whatever, you don't need to defend USFG action but you should show how you are in some way tangentially related to the topic to avoid the FW wall. Or dont, there's still a world where I'd vote for it.

I should probably add at the bottom of this I primarily read more contemporary french theorists than anything else, with the exception of other auths. like hegelians, kantians, marxists, those crowds.

Theory/FW

Theory: So while I'm all for your TOTALLY RADICAL hijinx on the T page, it would behoove you to win more than just that the debate was difficult for you to win. In my mind debate ought to be very difficult, to reach the threshold for me to evaluate a T shell the way it ought to be evaluated (apriori) then you should hit a higher bar than "x made the AR difficult".

That said, I'm all for extremely technical theory debate, just keep in mind what I am comfortable voting on.

I don't vote on disclosure.

I don't vote on speed theory in the event there's a speech doc. (I'll still clear you in round)

FW: I default competing interpretations if for some nightmarish event happens where nobody discusses this.

Otherwise, its a debate like any other.

Case/DA/CP?

I'm tab, do whatever you like.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty.

It's not that I don't vote on your 3 word 100% certainty impact analysis, but that doing this leaves you open to a compelling argument (for me).

Speaks/CX

30's for everyone

If something in CX isn't made in a speech I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.

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

^^speaks/cx^^

I'm flowing. You win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Come to the round preflowed, you don't have to wait on me before you flip for sides.

Speed is fine, I debate fast in LD, you need to send out & be capable of making speech docs for the opponent if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around/accomodate to make this a more viable option for you. You spread, you should be able to take on the higher expectations that go along with it.

jackcrawford1825@gmail.com -- for the email chain

Cards

I like cards and you should read them.

If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll get angry and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access your cards quickly.

Front half (AC/NC & AR/NR)

Constructives can be anything, I'm tab and I don't ever take my own opinons of policy into a debate round.

I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Rebuttals can do whatever, I don't evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)

The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.

Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.

Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob. a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Offense that you don't get into ff I don't evaluate, and framed offense beats a larger quantity of offense 9/10 times.

Theory

I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, espec. in this event.

If you can't win a reason why the theory vio. made the debate impossible for you to win, it's not apriori, and I cannot imagine a scenario I'll vote on the shell. (I say why in the LD section)

It's an apriori issue that works as an RVI because the event's too short by a massive margin to prevent this from being over-strategic.

Therefore, you ought not spitball blippy poorly constructed theory args. (please) at non-tech teams because it's a coinflip if you can hit the high threshold & avoid the RVI. I can and will enforce the RVI.

Phaedra Culley Gilbert Classical Academy 4 rounds None

Frederic Daniels Hamilton High School 2 rounds None

Jayyy Dawkins Phoenix Country Day School 4 rounds

Jeff Devereaux Albuquerque Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 14, 2021 at 2:37 AM MDT

Things I Am:

- I'm a judge, therefore, I exist and have supreme authority.

Things I Am Not:

- Your timekeeper.

General Preferences:

- Signpost, signpost, signpost! I'm not your guide, I'm the tourist. Take me on the journey that is your case and make sure I leave you an amazing Google review.

- A note on spreading. I've accepted that Public Forum has adopted this from LD and Policy, but I don't like it. And neither does Zoom (it gets hard to hear and leads to technical difficulties, not to mention a migraine) If you can serve me some champion level spreading, I'm here for it. If you say the same word fifteen times because you're going too fast, no speaker points for you, Gretchen. Therefore, spread at your own risk.

- Which brings me to another note: Public Forum is meant to be just that, an event that is accessible to the "public." I give much higher speaks to teams who not only provide solid evidence but are able to relate their case and evidence to real world events, political action, etc. related to the topic. Social media and democracy provide a HUGE opportunity to do this. So while I appreciate a tech argument, don't get so caught up in the technicalities that you forget to talk about the current reality of our political climate in an impactful way.

- Weigh. Don't throw around words like magnitude, etc. unless you are going to define them appropriately. Otherwise, I will think you are using big words to sound smart and don't actually know what you're talking about.

- "Your case is the story, and the round is your stage!" - A wizened debater quoting Shakespeare... But for real, tell the story that is your case and defend it. I don't care what strategy you're using, so don't ask, just go for it. If I think it's sloppy, that's where my ballot will come in.

- Don't bring up new evidence in Second Summary, Grand CX, or FF. That's just cruel.

On a more serious note, I will disclose and provide feedback after rounds. Please do not question my decision. If I say something wasn't clear or I was confused, that's not my problem as judge, that's yours as a debater and failing to make a clear argument. I will do my best to be constructive so that you can improve, therefore, please be respectful on your part and accept feedback from others (which is vital not just for debate, but for your personal success, period).

If you would like additional feedback after reading YOUR ballot, I can be reached by email at devereaux@aa.edu. Please include the tournament and your school code in the subject line so that I know which flow I should be referencing.

Thanks kids and let's have some fun debating!

Dyson Ellis BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Renee Endress Belvidere North HS 2 rounds

Koji Flynn-Do The Harker School 2 rounds

Susan Foley Campbell Hall HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 25, 2021 at 5:10 AM PDT

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Scott Franz Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Tracy Fuentes Desert Oasis HS 6 rounds

Leann Galoustian Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds

Jonah Goldman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM EDT

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

Jenifer Groman Paradise Valley HS 1 rounds

Angela Gupta University Independent 2 rounds

Chas Gurtler BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Tracy Hancey Layton HS 4 rounds

Denise Harper Red Mountain High School 2 rounds None

Julie Herman Los Altos High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 9:07 AM PDT

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Raymond Hon Hire 6 rounds

Wendy Hsu Torrey Pines HS 4 rounds

Benjamin Hughes Fairmont Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 1:59 AM PDT

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Adnan Ismail Leland High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 8:10 PM +13

********************************************************************************************

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

***********************************************************************************************

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

Jana Kanaan Horizon HS 6 rounds None

Bilal Kapadya Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 13, 2021 at 7:59 PM MST

TL;DR

I know stuff.

Bio (Completely Irrelevant)

I competed in PF for four years at Hamilton High School (2014-2018). In my senior year I was the captain of the team. I competed a lot on the AZ local circuit, and won/placed at a bunch of tournaments. I also competed a bit on the national circuit (broke boi couldn't afford all the plane tickets in HS), and have dabbled in Policy and Big Questions debate. Finally, I've also competed in the International Public Policy forum and achieved global Top 16 alongside my team. Today, I'm a student studying Computer Science and Physics at ASU.

Speed/Speaking

1. I can comprehend up to 275 words per minute, but my most accurate flowing happens at about 225 words per minute and under. Be smart about your word economy. If you can say it slower and make the same goddamn point just as effectively, do that. Do not sacrifice clarity for "speed" (I say "speed" because when you're messing up so much because you're trying to go faster than you're meant to, your effective speed is actually super slow.) Do not use the Gish gallop, this will annoy me severely.

2. I reserve the right to yell "CLEAR" at any point in the round; if I do, that means something with your speaking isn't working for me and it needs to be fixed; it could be speed, volume, enunciation, slurring, etc. I don't do this to be a jerk, I do it because I actually want to hear what you have to say. However, don't rely on my yelling of "CLEAR" as an absolute metric though, because you might just not be egregious enough for me to say it. If I look confuzzled or like I'm not understanding what's going on, that is likely the case.

3. There are a myriad of references you can make that will bump up your speaker points if they are eloquently incorporated into your speech: PewDiePie, Speedcubing, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti, Future, Juice WRLD, Eminem, Deadpool, Mr. Robot, or Avatar (NOT the blue aliens one). Saying "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the end of the speech is no longer novel to me, and I won't count it.

Cross-Ex

0. As a general rule, cross is for you, not me.

1. I will not judge on what is said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. (I do actually listen though - even if I'm walking around, eating, etc. - unless it's mind-numbing, which happens fairly frequently).

2. Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case, I don't frown on that. Don't be afraid to ask why; at best, their reasoning will be moronic and easy to dismantle, and at worst, we all learn something.

3. Don't go back and forth and waste time during cross. (But depth is awesome and absolutely necessary, don't misconstrue the two).

4. I don't see "my partner will answer this in speech" as a weakness if it's because the idea takes a bit to explain or if you already know your partner will expound on an idea you briefly mention, but I might still smile at it, because it's memey. But if it's a question that you should be able to answer, then that's probably a problem.

5. When someone asks for an explanation of a warrant, "we have a card for that" is not an appropriate answer. This is also true for the round in general, not just CX. ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS; if the answer wouldn't have been satisfying for you then it's likely not satisfying for me either. A card is not a warrant in and of itself.

6. Standing or sitting, don't care. Do a handstand if you want.

7. First speaking team gets the first question, no need to ask, just get into it.

8. Towards the end of cross, y'all can reserve the right to end it if there's nothing to talk about, and just prep instead during that time (for a MAX of thirty seconds) (especially GCX).

Timing

1. Please time yourself. I basically always forget, so please keep track of yourselves and each other (that goes for speech AND prep).

2. If you need to verbally let me know your opponent is going over time, that's fine (just give them like 4 seconds of grace period). You can avoid all of the ambiguity by just using a timer that actually goes off at the end of the speech too.

Etiquette

1. Try to get to the round on time (I will too). If you need time in the room to get your stuff together, or pre-flow, I'm totally cool with that, I just don't want to accidentally tell Tabroom you don't exist (same reason I'll try to be there on time). But again, s*** happens, so I'm gonna try not to be annoying about time, as much as possible.

2. I like Aff on my left, Neg on my right. The world will not end if this is not true, however.

3. I’m not uptight; I like a chill vibe in rounds. I like judging rounds where everyone's actually having fun (especially me). Good jokes are great, bad jokes are colossal failures. (If you can make your opponents' argument seem so ridiculous that it's funny, you're probably being quite convincing). I encourage being savage, but in a tasteful-ish manner. Being savage is not the same as being petulant.

4. You can swear, I don’t care. Actually, I'll probably like it, especially if it helps with your rhetorical efficacy.

5. I’d rather not shake hands. Shaking hands with me won’t magically help or hurt your chances of winning, but it could get either of us sick.

Debate-y Stuff

1. Signpost everything, for the love of music, video games, Netflix, pets, and parents. I literally don’t know where to put stuff if you don’t signpost (and then I won't write anything, and it'll be your fault).

a. If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and what happens to offense as a result.

b. If you're frontlining a response, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to, and what I need to extend as a result of this frontline.

2. Structure responses in a systematic manner, at the least. I really prefer numbered responses in rebuttals and I like numbered frontlines in the summaries and second rebuttals (this makes it easier to reference which response we're talking about at any point).

3. Please extend arguments throughout both Summ/FF speeches consistently, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. However, you don't have to yell "extend" before everything you extend (because that’s annoying), just contextualize the argument and why I should extend it.

4. If you’re not frontlining, you will probably auto-lose the round, because I want to watch an actual debate.

5. I like to have a roadmap before speeches, but it should NOT be flowery. For example: “framework, aff case, neg case.” If you’re doing something weird though, let me know. In most cases, I just want to know which side of the flow we're starting on.

6. There’s no reason to "extend" your own case in rebuttal if "time permits" if you’re the first speaking team. I don’t get why debaters do this, but it’s a waste, and I WILL drop speaker points for this.

7. 2nd rebuttal should address the 1st rebuttal.

8. 1st summary should address the 2nd rebuttal.

9. I’m cool with overviews.

a. If an overview applies to an argument specifically, remind me of the overview and cross apply it.

b. Your overview shouldn’t just be another contention though, that’s not the point.

10. If you read a definition, actually make it useful for your case. "But bro, they didn't have a definition, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

11. Frameworks can be as important as you make them.

a. If your frameworks agree, just stop mentioning it, I’ll use it.

b. Weighing really helps to solidify a ballot, and a carded weighing analysis can really help with that. Also, you NEED to tell me how to weigh unlike things; it's easy to say $200 million is more than $170 million, but we all know this is rarely how debate functions. If you don't convince me of a way to adjudicate the round, I don't know what the hell to do.

c. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

12. ALL offense must be in summary.

a. The first summary does not need to include defense unless this defense has been frontlined already.

b. However, turns must be in summary, otherwise they will end up only being terminal defense. (Otherwise it's abusive, the other team needs to know what you're going for).

13. I hate key voters, they obfuscate the round for me. Instead keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially line-by-line, but don't think saying card names aimlessly is going to mean anything, so don't card dump).

14. I GREATLY encourage collapsing. Kick an argument and instead show me why the one you go for is enough for the win. (You can’t kick an argument with a turn on it and expect things to be okay for you though, obviously.)

15. Please verbally label turns explicitly. It really helps me to see how you get offense on your opponent’s case. (Like actually say the word "turn" or something very similar).

16. Don’t give me a specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan).

17. Don’t give me a random alt on the Neg.

18. Please don’t strawman, make sure you respond to the actual arguments your opponents are making. That's the number one way to get me to tune out quickly.

19. K's might not be the best idea because I default to post-fiat impacts. The only way you'll win with a K is if you actually convince ME I should go pre-fiat or your K solves in a post-fiat analysis.

20. I don't flow card names for the most part, so make sure to tell me what the card says.

21. I love creative, innovative, eye-opening, deep arguments that come from another angle. I hate stupid, nonsensical arguments that disguise themselves as novel when they're not. Running one of those will get you yeeted. Logic actually matters, people. (This isn't to say I'm not tabula rasa, I really am very close. The point I'm making is that my threshold for refuting inherently ridiculous arguments is inherently lower than those that actually make sense, so you're handicapping yourself severely within the context of the round by running something we all know is dumb. For example, if the Aff tells me that "elephants are purple" and the Neg responds with "no," I will consider that an effective response. Remember, in the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and if you're giving me less-than-extraordinary evidence, you're screwed, because your opponents are probably smarter than your "argument").

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. If you want to know how you're doing in a round, look at me, chances are that'll give you some information because my face can be very telling. I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. I will almost always disclose, and I will provide a detailed verbal RFD, which often includes a significant degree of roasting. You can ask me questions after the round about anything, but don't argue with me, because I will submit my ballot before I disclose. Good luck.

Ritu Khanna Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Vivek Khanna BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

Nick Klemp Phoenix Country Day School 2 rounds

Jason Knorr McClintock 4 rounds None

Gerdenis Kodis BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Brandon Komatsu Coronado HS 4 rounds

Nicole Kroepel Belvidere North HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 2:09 PM CDT

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Branden Lee Torrey Pines HS 4 rounds

Tony Leger Independent Clements High School 4 rounds

Jenny Lessie Tucson 6 rounds

Carl Liaupsin Tucson 4 rounds None

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Ben Max Advanced Technologies Acad 2 rounds None

Annie Mazzarella Hire 3 rounds

Lizzie McCord Saint Mary's Hall HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 7, 2021 at 10:41 AM EDT

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

Cale McCrary Corona Del Sol HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Elizabeth Meerson La Salle HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 13, 2020 at 11:28 PM PDT

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Nupur Mehrotra Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

David Mendoza Riverside STEM Academy 6 rounds None

Sherry Meng Corona Del Sol HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

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.

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.

Thea Migel Tucson 6 rounds

Anika Mirza The Nueva School 3 rounds

Gianmar Molero Valley International Prep 2 rounds

Fahima Molly Canyon Crest Independent 6 rounds

Brock Moody Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 17, 2020 at 2:45 AM PDT

As a debater of 3 years I have a set standard that I expect from any debate.

Evidence:

- The set standard for public forum debate is the full citation (author's name, institution, and year), link to the article(live not a PDF) and a paragraph above and below the quote or paraphrasing used. This should be readily available at a moments notice not after 10 minutes of searching through your files holding back not only this round but following rounds (huge pet peeve of mine).

- I will call for a card if you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. If whatever cards i call for are powertagged/misconstrued, I drop the cards. If it's heavily misconstrued/blatantly made up and a deciding factor in the round, i drop the team.

Speed is perfectly acceptable but do not sacrifice clarity for speed and be considerate of your opponents.

Spectators are allowed so long as both teams wish to have them.

Decorum:

- How you dress will not be a matter of speech points or the result of the round.

- Witty comebacks or comments are encouraged but know their is a fine line between being witty and being rude which will lose you speaker points/rank.

- Be respectful in CX (which I do not flow) if you are not allowing your opponent to speak or talking over them that is a sense of insecurity not superior debating skills. I've debated for 2 years on the national circuit, I'll know when you are selling me garbage and if any argument has any standing.

In the round:

- I need impact calc with comparison in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.

- Do not extend through ink, use your frontlines and respond to these arguments otherwise they will stay invalid.

- If you do not bring something up in your summary I will not weigh it in your final focus.

- DO NOT repeat to me everything from your rebuttals in your summary, this is a time to summarize down to main arguments for me to vote off of. The best summary typically wins the round first speakers.

Argumentation:

- Please try to stick to the topic. This means Ks are a no go and only run theory when there is a blatant abuse that needs to be called out. Let's keep pf and policy separate events as long as we can.

- Framework is non-essential but if you provide me with one you better stick with it because I will vote based off it. Otherwise I will default to a cost-benefit analysis. If there is more than one framework in the round you must prove to me why I should weigh off yours.

- Overviews should not be taking more than a minute of your rebuttal unless it directly responds to your opponents argument.

- Logical warrants hold the same weight as evidential.

I will normally disclose so long as both teams agree to hear the RFD.

Joanna Mrsich Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2019 at 11:29 AM PDT

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

Assistant Coach for Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Education:

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communications from the University of La Verne '18

Debate Experience:

University of La Verne 2014 Performance Scholarship Recipient for Speech & Debate

Competitive collegiate British Parliamentary style debater 2014 - 2018

Attended over 25 tournaments nationally & internationally: The Oxford IV 2017, WUDC Mexico 2018, CMUDE Chile 2018, USUDC Anchorage 2015, USUDC Atlanta 2016, USUDC Stanford 2018, Pan-AmericanUDC Atlanta 2018, etc.

Titles: 2017 U.S. National Debate Championship Winner (BP Debate), Spanish World's Debate Championship 2018 Finalist (CMUDE Chile 2018)

Coaching Experience:

Bonita High School, Fairmont Preparatory Academy, University of La Verne (Spanish BP)

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

PF Paradigm 2018-2019 Season:

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

"Prep time for the requesting team will not start until evidence has been handed over to the debater requesting said cards. Teams may prep during this evidence request time, this should encourage teams to have their evidence ready and available to present immediately. Judges should discourage teams from attempting to “game the system” if evidence requests become overly burdensome or create excessive delays in the debate." - TOC rules. [KNOW THE RULES KIDDOS]

EXPLAIN UNIQUENESS. If you can't explain/link out to why something actually changes on the AFF, it's going to put you at a huge disadvantage.

CARDS. CARDS. CARDS. I know this topic isn't the crowd favorite, but this is TOC, you *especially* need to have evidence for what you run. Don't make assertions or say "it just logically makes sense" when someone asks where your evidence is in round. Have a card or you don't get access to your impact.

I'm a flow judge at heart. I do not like spreading, if you spread: it won't win you any favor in the round and it is better for you to slow down and explain your contentions at a normal pace. Don't read theory.
If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary; everything said in final focus should have at least been mentioned in summary. Please know the difference between a team dropping a point/not engaging with a contention and a team whose response you simply did not like. Disliking a team's response to your case does not equate dropping or not refuting it.
I don't flow crossfire but I DO listen and it can factor into my decision sometimes. However: anything super important coming out of crossfire that you want me to flow should be in one of your speeches.
Productive crossfire: if you spend 3 minutes talking over one another/constantly interrupting/being unnecessarily rude, etc: it's a waste of time for you and will make me annoyed. I lower speaker points for this.
I enjoy off time roadmaps so I know where you are at on the flow.

What I want to see: flushed out link chains & arguments that have realistic impacts. I vote for teams that are closest to the truth. Truth > Tech in most circumstances. Exaggerations and half-truths will be factored into my decisions; I defer to the teams with the most realistic and honest impact when there is tie.
Properly complete/extend your links in summary and final focus

Weighing mechanisms :) Explain why I should defer to your side: cost benefit analysis, scope, magnitude, probability, etc. I am in huge favor of clearly explained impacts. Pre-empt this in summary, be sure to do this in final focus.
Comparatively weigh the round. Engage with the other side and their impacts and explain why I still should defer to your side.

What I do not want to see: 1) abuse or misuse your evidence: I will pull cards if I need to. 2) spreading 3) Unproductive crossfire: allow the other side to speak, be respectful, only interrupt if absolutely necessary. Speaker points will reflect how you treat others in round. 4) Theory. In my opinion, this should only be run if the other side is truly being abusive and you HAVE to thoroughly explain it. 5) Disrespectful Post-Rounding: If you have a question, cool. I am happy to explain my thinking calculus. But do not interrupt me while I am giving an RFD or tell me I'm wrong. You're allowed to disagree, but do so respectfully. :)

ALSO: I have a very serious face when I judge, it is not that I hate you or what you are saying: it is just my face :) If y'all have any questions about anything, feel free to ask before the round!

Lastly: I know it's TOC and y'all have a lot on the line, but don't forget to breathe & enjoy the ride. I know it's corny and cliché, but don't forget to have fun.

Elliot Muhlenfeld Vitamin Academy 6 rounds

Sudati Nadam BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

John Nahas Gunn Sr HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 27, 2023 at 3:30 PM EDT

TLDR: Tech > Truth

********* This is in my paradigm but ill add it again because I dont want you to lose on some goofy technicality.... you need to fully extend your arguments. You cant just frontline and move on. After frontlining you have to extend your argument. *********

| PLEASE LINE BY LINE | PRETTY PLEASE SIGNPOST | EXTEND FULL ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | I WILL VOTE ON ANY ARG THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIONARY |

come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done unless you have a paradigm question

Pretty standard, here are some general things to do:

1. if its in final focus its in summary

2. frontline offense in second rebuttal. I won't make you but it's advantageous because of the next thing.

3. 1st speaking team, if the 2nd speaking team doesnt frontline defense/turns, please listen to me on this... defense can go straight to final focus. If a turn is dropped by them, and its not in summary, you can still extend it into ff as defense (if it's truly a turn its prolly terminal defense). As such, assuming 2nd speaking doesnt FL, 1st summary should be almost purely offense. If they do FL, then you gotta have the defense in first summary.

4. Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants). Although itll prolly help, i wont force you to extend author names as long as you properly signpost and extend your arguments in totality.

5. There are two ways i can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isnt needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy and do actual comparative analysis, and please even justify why i should prefer your weighing over theirs. I'm also inclined to reward good internal link debate. With that (and the following is bolded for a reason) PLEASE DO NOT USE "WEIGHING" AS AN EXCUSE TO READ NEW LINK TURNS. Idk what happened to the circuit but this got increasingly prevalent last year, and is even more prevalent, from what i can tell, this year. Thanks.

6. Speed: Please send a speech doc if its either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it wont help you when i get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS.

7. DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of yall accidentally do this anyways cause people dont read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. If the 'DA' is a big turn that truly applies to their argument, dope. If your rebuttal is "iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn tHrEe Is..." then please abstain. I already said im cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in the first constructive.

8. Theory: yuh. I default to RVI unless told otherwise. If reading theory, structure it properly. If responding to theory/youre reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isnt an excuse to undercover it though. Also if youre concerned i (again) default to RVI .... keep this in mind ig.

9. Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, Ive read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. I just say I prefer util cause im less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.

10. Speaks are subjective. if you read pure cards ill definitely give a bump

11. CX: i dont listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

*Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with the decision*

email: johnjjjn@gmail.com

Albab Newaz Canyon Crest Independent 6 rounds

Thuy Nguyen Helix Charter HS 6 rounds

Hemangi Nimbkar Hire 6 rounds None

Subodh Nimbkar Arizona College Prep - Erie Campus 4 rounds

Hardy Niu BASIS Scottsdale HS 6 rounds

Michael Obuchi College Prep

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School - North Hollywood 6 rounds

kevin ozomaro Los Altos High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 27, 2022 at 7:49 PM EDT

Hey, my name is Kevin Ozomaro; I am a communication graduate student and graduate assistant coach at the University of the Pacific. Before my time at UOP, I competed for Delta college and CSU Sacramento, where I competed in parli and LD debate. That being said, most of my debate knowledge is geared towards LD debate. That doesn't mean I don't understand parli; it just means that I'm more comfortable with arguments commonly found in LD. I've coached debate at all levels, from k-12 to college. I have learned a lot over my time in forensics, but that doesn't mean I know everything! If you are reading something that a communication grad student wouldn't understand at 500 words a minute, maybe you shouldn't read it or slow down and explain it to me. Below are some basics to how I view and judge debate.

NPTE People:

Low pref if:

1. you like K affs that are confusing( Sunbutthole K, pretty much any racist shittt)

2. You think condo or not condo is the most important thing in the world. Yes I'm from UOP but I don't care mannnn

3. you think reject is a great alt

High pref if:

1. Afro anything K / identity K

2. neolib K

3. Heg debate/ or militarism or militarization

4. not a fan of spreading

The Basics: because I know you don't want to read...

In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)
Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse
I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise
Tell me why you win.
If you are rude I will drop you. Its kinda simple don't be a butthole. Examples are not slowing and spreading someone out of the round.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization: is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate, I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik. If I can't understand the K I will not vote on it, doesn't matter if it goes dropped if I have zero idea what is going on I will not vote on it. That goes for both K affs and neg K's.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence/cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical/philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can't do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is "antithetical" to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

Evidence: If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

Thanks, Ryan guy of Mjc

Lacrima Parau BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

Kerry Payton-Jenkins Rocky Mountain HS 4 rounds

Erik Perez Juan Diego Catholic High School 4 rounds

Nicholas Petsas Brophy College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:25 AM MST

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:

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 The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT

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.

Lee Place Mission San Jose HS 6 rounds

Mandakini Prasad Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

jackie prokopeas The Harker School 2 rounds

Rahul Ramesh Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM EDT

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

Andres Ramos Corona Del Sol HS 6 rounds

Abhi Rane BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Sneha Raola BASIS Ahwatukee 3 rounds

Deon Riley Palo Verde HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 2, 2019 at 12:01 AM PDT

About me:

I am currently a freshman at the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas, continuing my education at the University of Nevada Reno in 2019. I am polysci major and I hope to go to law school for public international law. I did four years of Speech and Debate at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas from 2014-2018. I did three years of policy debate, and one year of LD my senior year taking 3rd in the state. I went to Nationals in 2017 for World Schools Debate and again in 2018 as the Golden Desert world schools debate captain. I am pretty informed and up to date on current events but I am definitely no expert. I am also pretty familiar with American government, policy, and relations with respect to current American politics.

Paradigm:

Like I said before, I did four years of debate in HS so I am a flow judge I guess, but I fw a quality traditional debate style. I will basically keep track of the entire round(especially tags) on the flow. Speed is totally okay as long as you can articulate well. IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPREAD, include me in an email chain (deonrileyjr@gmail.com) I do wanna see some quality debate on the logic or the position of being on the Affirmative/Negative. If you're trying to just have a good time, have fun, but don't waste anyone's time. I'm pretty much fine with all types of argument; (i.e. kritiks, topicality, plans, disdads, theory, etc.) however, I have a slight indisposition for them so take that how you will. The more "progressive" or postulatory you become, the more critical I am inclined to be. Therefore you will lose points/ground in the debate if your arguments do not logically make sense or are false. With that being said, I don't have to know or be familiar with the arguments (ex: the kritik) you use beforehand for you to have a well executed kritik. If I don't feel educated after you read your kritik, than you didn't do your job in trying to run that kritik or any argument.

Good ways to get voted up/higher speaks (: really good impact calc, ROTB (AFF/NEG world visualization), accurately applied and explained political philosophy, SIGNPOSTING PLS

Good ways to get voted down/low speaks ): Racist, discriminatory, hateful, or exclusive, homophobic or phobic language of any kind. False information(I might fact check you). sloppy and unorganized debate--> Nobody likes a debater who goes from Cont3 subc and then back to Cont1 suba. Messy, unclear, and poorly executed arguments.

If you have any other specific questions, you can ask me before the round starts. If you wanna follow me, ask me after the round and I'll plug the insta or twitter haha.

Victor Rivas Umana Saratoga HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Ryan Robinson Sahuaro HS 2 rounds

Alexandra Ros BASIS Ahwatukee 1 rounds

Robyn Rose Lake Oswego Senior High School 4 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:46 PM PDT

King Round Robin/NDCAs: you do you but probs would prefer topical debates seeing how far we all came for the tourney and TOC practice. Topical K’s fine I guess but still prefer substance.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Anjalee Sadhwani Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Kyle Sasagawa Torrey Pines HS 6 rounds

Charles Schletzbaum Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

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

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

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

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

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Schulster Capitol Debate 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2019 at 4:45 AM EDT

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Balaji Sekar Del Norte Independent 2 rounds

Gavin Serr Park City 6 rounds

Aashney Shah Desert Vista HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2018 at 7:12 AM MST

I'm not really good at putting this into words so if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.

I competed in Public Forum nationally and locally (AZ) all four years of high school, and dabbled in Extemp and Congress.

Speeches: In rebuttal, it is really easy to try to talk fast and have 7-10 responses per argument, but most of the time that means that each response is barely covered and there is a high chance that one response has been reiterated a few times, just with different words/cards. Please don't do that, I would much prefer quality of your responses to quantity of your responses. I expect that you maintain consistency between summary and final focus. If they are not consistent I will not weigh something said in summary and not FF and vice versa. However, just telling me to 'flow through ____ card' is not sufficient, I must get the link chain, and explanation of why that card is important. Also, WEIGH, I am sure that if you don't, and I end up doing the work, neither of us will have a fun time with the decision. Make sure that you collapse in summary and final focus, this makes it easier to judge the round and it makes everything much clearer. Also, make sure that your narrative is strong. Remember, you should tell me a story, don't just read cards and expect me to understand your argument, make sure that I understand step by step why your argument functions and makes sense.

Evidence: If you read something in any speech, it should be readily available and so if the opposing team asks for it, I will give you 30 seconds to look for it before I start cutting into your prep time. Also, please abide by evidence rules. I will ask for evidence if hotly contested or if its validity is questioned.

How to win my ballot: Basically, do all the things you were taught to do: Link out and warrant each argument you are going for, make sure you have offense, and most importantly, tell me why you win and why I vote for you.

Notes:

- Please try to respond to every argument brought up in constructives, otherwise it allows for easy offense for your opponents.

- Don't flow through red ink, I will be flowing and I will know if the argument has been responded to.

- I won't listen to CX wholly, bring it up in a speech if its mentioned in CX

- Only use FW/Observations/Definitions if they really are beneficial to your case/the round. If it is just "cost-benefit analysis" or "Merriam-Webster defines ___" it just takes away from the substance of your case.

- Run whatever arguments you want but just make sure that the link chain is clear, and everything is properly warranted and linked.

- Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Just be a nice person, its easy.

- Signposting is nice, please do it.

I also have two huge pet peeves:

1) Please please please do NOT give me an off time roadmap if it is "down their case, then if time permits mine" or "the three voting issues". Only give me a roadmap if it is something completely out of the ordinary that I should know.

2) Do not count down the time to your speech "3, 2, starting... now". Just start talking, I trust you to take time for yourself.

I really am bad at saying what I look for in a round so if you have any specific questions don't hesitate to ask!

Bob Shurtz Hawken 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Adi Sidapara BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Amanda Sloan Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas 6 rounds

Logan Smith Sahuaro HS 6 rounds None

Raj Soni BASIS Scottsdale HS 1 rounds

Shikhar Srivastava College Prep

Last changed on Sat January 22, 2022 at 8:11 AM EDT

background:

--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.

general:

---[1] ssrivastava@berkeley.edu - put me on the email chain

---[2] good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.

---[3] always tech>truth as long as there are arguments

---[4] an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)

---[5] don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that

---[6] slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage

---[7] 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable

by argument:

k affs:

---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.

---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.

kritik:

--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).

--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE

cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.

t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)

tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose

theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.

decision time:

decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).

tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).

ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.

misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.

speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.

Emily Steirman The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 10, 2019 at 1:49 PM EDT

I did Public Forum Debate for four years (2014-2018) at Nueva, and am now entering my sophomore year at Johns Hopkins.

Terminalization: Please make sure that you are terminalizing your impacts. "Higher/lower debt," "more/less economic growth," and "Chinese hegemony" are not terminalized impacts. Explain how and why your impacts matter.

Weighing: The most important thing you can do in a round in my opinion is weigh. I appreciate weighing as early as rebuttal, on both the link and impact levels, but at the very least you should be weighing in the final focus.

Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to cover first rebuttal, however it is frequently strategic and I would especially appreciate responding to turns that were put on your case. First summary does not need to extend defense that was not responded to in second rebuttal. Offensive voters should be in summary and final focus for both teams. Extensions need to involve extending the argument/warrant, not just the author name.

Crossfire: I pay attention to but do not flow crossfire, meaning that arguments need to be made during your speech time. Crossfire is a time to ask your opponents questions, not to make a speech. I don't care if you're looking at me during crossfire.

Tech vs. Truth: I try to be tech over truth as much as possible aside from arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted, so I will flow and evaluate false arguments. Just know that you're lowering the bar for your opponents' responses and you should make sure to explain your argument extra clearly because I may assume I'm misunderstanding your argument if I know it's not true.

Presumption: I try to avoid voting on presumption, so even in rounds where presuming would be a reasonable decision, I'll look very hard for some risk of offense to vote on. However, I'd really rather not have to adjudicate rounds like that, so please make and extend offensive arguments and respond to defense.

General: Signpost. Don't be rude to your opponents. Don't misconstrue evidence. Don't feel obliged to shake my hand.

RFD: In general I think we should be looking to improve the educational value of debate, and I consider rounds to be much more educational when the debaters understand the judge's decision. To that end, I'll try to give an RFD whenever I can, and I strongly encourage you to ask me any questions you have.

Carrie Strecker Grand County High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 4:16 AM MDT

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

Andy Stubbs St John's School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Emily Su Hamilton High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM MST

I did PF for 3 years, and dabbled briefly in Policy (it was rough lol). I graduated from ASU this past December with degrees in Economics and Justice Studies, and I'll be going to law school this fall.

I value evidence and warrants a LOT. I usually won't call for cards unless it was pretty heavily contested during the round, but pls don't use evidence that's sus-- if I notice that your card is clipped or contradicts your contentions, that'll still count against you. Pls download the entire card because it's important for context! That being said, what matters is not always the quantity of cards, but rather the quality and how you explain them and impact them out. Don't just tell me that x causes y-- tell me why there's a causal relationship. Warrants are how you show that you actually understand your argument. And even if an arg doesn't have a ton of evidence backing it up, you should still answer the logic of the contention. Also, I care a lot about impact calc; if you don't weigh things for me, I'll have to weigh them myself and that might not be in your favor. Tell me how to vote!

I care a lot about consistency, so if you wanna go for something in your FF, flow it through in your summary.

As for crossfire, I probably won't pay much attention... I don't flow cross, so reiterate any important points in later speeches. I don't really care whether y'all stand or sit, whichever's more comfortable for everyone!

Roadmaps are pretty useless for rebuttals unless you're doing something weird, like answering the third contention at the top of the flow. Signposting is really important in all your speeches, though, so I know where to place things on my flow. For summary and final focus, roadmaps can be helpful if you specify your key voters, or if you're gonna read an overview. But if you're just saying something like "I'm addressing my opponents' case, then extending my own," or "I'm gonna go through some key voters and why we won," it's fairly pointless.

Speed is fine, as long as you're clear and enunciate your tags and key pieces of evidence/impacts that you really want me to pay attention to. I'll let you know if you're going too fast, and pls don't spread! Also, pls keep your K's and high-level theory away from PF. I won't run prep while you're looking for evidence that your opponents wanna look at, but I'll start prep once you begin looking over that evidence.

If I hear an arg that's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I'll automatically drop that argument and tank your speaks. I'll do my best to judge tabula rasa, but I value truth over tech.

Bonus speaks if you say "crystallize," have funny tags, or make a pun during the round!

Venkataramana Suggula BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Mike Suomi STRIVE Prep - RISE 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:15 PM MDT

Former High School Policy Debater (before PF even existed) in Wisconsin and on National Circuit. Assistant Coach at STRIVE Prep - RISE in Denver, CO. Former coach of DSST: Cole High School in Denver, CO.

PF Specific Updates:

Read Evidence Call me old-school, but I'd like to hear you actually read evidence. I'm really not enjoying the paraphrased tag-line strategy that supposedly brings in the entire card of evidence and warrants without reading the actual warrants in the round. Some teams are "reading" more cards than a policy debate round would, but it is really just citing a bibliography with tags. Furthermore, this then can become a bunch of overtagged claims linked together to some extremely illogical argument that isn't supported by the literature. So, read more evidence. This would also make the rounds so much better because we could go more in depth rather than breadth and actual get to the warrants and clash between arguments.

Summary Speech I do think that summary speeches should be "summarizing" the round down and include all the arguments you plan on going for in the final focus. If you don't argue everything in summary then the round can get very messy with new story-lines/cards reappearing in the final focus speech from way back in the rebuttals but hadn't been talked about since, which seems borderline abusive but definitely makes the weighing and story of the round more confusing. Therefore, if your partner didn't talk about it in Summary I won't listen to your argument in Final Focus.

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

Evidence: I am evidence-focused and will ask for evidence if it is up for Debate (in both PF and Policy).
Warrants/Analysis/Links: The lost art of debate from what I've seen at a lot of local tournaments this year - please explain the warrants, analysis, and links/internal links of your arguments to be strong. If you do not adequately do this, don't be surprised by a decision that you might not agree with as I should not be doing any work on my end to make connections - that is your job to prove it to me.
Clash: The most successful debaters in front of me will clearly clash with their opponents arguments in the line-by-line and explain why those arguments are flawed or not as good as your counter-analytics/evidence.
Speed: I can handle speed (as long as your speed is clear), but for the fastest teams will require some slight slowing on tags/authors and analytics/non-evidence based arguments (for example when reading your Aff Plan Details or arguing Topicality) so I can adequately capture everything. If during the round it becomes clear you are a lot faster than the other team, please do not continuing spreading to the point of being mean or your speaks will drop. (Also, for PF when you aren't actually reading evidence even slow speed can be hard for me to flow because I just can't keep up flowing a million tag lines.)
Flow/Drops: I am a flow judge, and do take dropped arguments seriously. However, I also much prefer argumentation and analysis than a ticky-tack debate about who dropped what. Furthermore, if all you say is "they dropped it, so it flows for us" - I will not give it much weight as you need to explain the importance of the argument and how it matters in the round for me to care about it otherwise you effectively dropped it as well by not explaining it. Also, for PF teams that don't talk about a particular contention after their constructive until the Final Focus and then say "our opponents dropped our contention, so we should win on that" I will not take that seriously as you also effectively dropped it throughout the round.
Social Etiquette: Do not be bigoted or racist in anyway despite the fact our country seems to currently be okay with that - this is the only time you would ever see judge intervention from me.

Policy Specific Paradigm:

Policy Maker: I would consider myself a policy-maker that evaluates the impacts of the round for Aff vs Neg. Therefore, 2NR and 2AR would do well to frame the round in term of impact analysis and explain why their impacts are the most critical to be solved - this can be argued and justified in many ways, so convince me.
Like Well-Argued Kritiks/Critiques: I really enjoy Kritik/Critique arguments. However, most teams do not do them super well as they are deeply philosophical arguments that are often very nuanced. If you argue that fiat is illusory (this is not required, and I actually appreciate the kritiks that have real policy impacts more as they are often more believable and interesting in the debate), you better not link harder to the Kritik in your on-case arguments than your opponent. Also, if fiat is illusory, I do want to hear convincing arguments for your alternative and how voting for you actually achieves this alternative goal (and why the Aff can't just perm it and talk/acknowledge the problems in the pre-fiat world but still debate a hypothetical post-fiat policy world). Also as a recommendation, if you are truly going for a Kritik, you should spend substantial time dedicated to it from both evidence and analytic standpoints as they are complicated topics that should be in some ways outside the "game" of debate.
Limit Topicality/Theory Arguments: While I will vote on topicality/theory arguments if forced to, I do not enjoy them in any way. I understand running T is a negative strategy as a time suck, so I am okay with one or two T arguments and won't hold it against you, but I hope the round doesn't come to Topicality and the quicker they get punted the better. For someone to win on topicality/theory it will have to be largely dropped or actually show very real abuse (with open-evidence project and familiarity of cases/topics, I have a hard time believing there is very much actual abuse that is happening though, so it better be convincing and don't be surprised if I give leeway to reasonable arguments from the other team.)

Anthony Survance DuPont Manual High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 2, 2023 at 12:31 PM EDT

I haven't judged debate in around 1 and a half years. However, I worked for 2 years as the GA for Western Kentucky. Coached at Ridge High school for 3 years primarily focusing on PF, but also helping with policy, Parli, and LD. I also competed for Western Kentucky University for 4 years doing LD. So I am experienced with debate, but keep in mind I may be rusty, so please focus on solid impact calc. and keeping the round clear/clean.

-------General Thoughts---------

I like speed! I think fast debates advance the bounds of possible argumentation within the debate space. Although, I do think people should avoid spreading if it is going to propogate structrual disadvantages or your opponents have asked you not to & would hear out speed bad in those instances. Additionally, I do need pen time. I think there should be pauses between arguments delivered at max speed and without them I may miss something

I like debate to be focused on topical advocacy. This means I prefer when debaters do research related to the topic at hand and my ballot in some way affirms. This doesn't mean I am not willing to vote for resistance strategies on the AFF/Neg but that I like to see research connected to the topic within those strategies. Not purely generic arguments. This also applies to theory. While I like T debates. I am fairly unpersuaded by theory argument completly seperated from the topic-- although I have voted for them before.

I am a flow judge but not fully tab. I dont think the role of the judge is to vote for unwarranted arguments. This means 1 sentence analytics (especially spikes or 'tricks') have little value to me and even if conceded are unlikely to be voted on. However, if evidence is conceded I am almost 100% going to vote on it. Basically, ev = fully tab. Blips = not fully tab.

------NFA LD--------

When I did NFA i ran primarily policy arguments, so as a judge I am best evaluating policy arguments. However, this doesnt mean I don't want people to run K's if thats your thing-- you just need to 'tuck me in' more in those debates or I may make a mistake.

As a judge I feel like the most important thing to me is that your reading arguments that are well researched and you can easily explain neuonced details of the arguments. This means reading arguments that you dont understand well with me in the back is not a good decision-- I wont want to vote for it. Also please cut new evidence, evidence quality is very important to me.

GO FAST!! I love spreading. I think debate is a highly competitive activity build upon using skills and tactics to overwhelm your opponent and make them lose.

Generally I would say, I'm cool with just about any argument if the round isn't close. But when rounds are close and competitive there are a few important things to note

For Theory-- I default to competing interps. I want theory positons to have direct in round implications as they relate to the affirmatives plan-text. This means I really hate 'trolley' theory. for example high school LD rounds about robot theory would be a non-starter for me; or if you read 'go to the beach thoery' i will stop flowing the position and you just wasted your time. Essentially I think T, Spec args, or CP theory-- but don't like random interps that aren't clearly derived from debate norms.

For the K-- I'm pretty comfortable with evaluating the K, however if its a more obscure K then i would prefer you to go slower during the collapse or contextualize it so i know what im voting for. I'm really into philosophy from a person level, especially Marxism and psychoanalysis-- so the odds are fairly high I'm relatively familiar with the literature. However, this doesn't mean I'm the most informed about kritique tricks and strategies you may carry out with your specific K (since I didn't read the K in many rounds), so just be sure not to assume too much from me from a knowledge standpoint.

Non-T AFFs: I'm willing to listen to the debate, and in a round thats a crush I would consider myself a fair judge. However, I definitely lean toward prefering that AFFs are resolutional. I have no issue with non-T affs from an ideological standpoint, but I do really have an issue with non-resolutional arguments because of the sheer impossibility of predicting them. So while I'm not going to hack in these rounds, I do think as a competitor you want to prefer resolutionality when possible

My favorite rounds are a really good policy debate. DA + CP's are great for me. Contrary to the K, it's going to be almost impossible for you to loose me on policy tricks or strategy. I love it when people set NC's up to cleaverly get their opponent for example T to force DA links or other creative policy strategies (doing these things, or generally impressing me with the policy strat is a great way to boost speaks.)

------High School LD------

^Read above 1st^

-Other things-

This is only my first year coaching HS LD, so LD specific tricks (in progressive rounds) are a little risky for me. Essentially, if you wouldn't ever see it in a policy round (RVI's, Spikes, NIBs, friv. theory, actions theory style phil) then it might not be the best argument to run for me. But that isn't to say I would never vote for that stuff

On theory:

-I don't like RVI's on T. I think the neg gets to test T at least once. However, on other theory args RVI's are cool.

-I don't like when the 1ar completely collapses to theory. This doesn't mean I won't vote for it. However, it isn't a good way to get high speaks

-I don't love disclosure debates. I think people get to break new affs. If people never disclose I will fairly evaluate the arg.

-Nothing truely frivilous please

-I don't like spikes/ one sentence theory args. Theory needs warrants too

-I am used to college LD where the AR is 6 minutes. As a result, I generally do think the aff has it a little worse-- do with that what you will

On Phil:

All phil debates aren't my favorite/ I am not the most familiar with them so tread lightly. However I will hear out the arg and totally try my best to evaluate it. I got a degree in phil so I am likely familiar with the authors, but not the specific debate applications/ tricks

------High School PF-----

Weighing is one of the most important things for me in PF because i find rounds often get muddled and lack an easy place to vote so i want to be told exactly what issues are the most important and where to vote. This means there needs to be a clear collapse in summery with that argument well impacted out in final focus.

Clash is also extremely important to me in PF. This means a few things. The second speaking team must cover the ink that was just put on their case in the first rebuttal as it makes the round easier to follow and fosters more clash if you choose not to and then the first summary makes extensions I'm not going to be very receptive to your new responses in second summary. Additionally please avoid only responding to taglines, if you don't give a warrant for your response, or concede their warrant the argument is functionally conceded.

Please give me a clear road map because I'm flowing and hate it especially in summaries when they don't make sense or aren't easy to flow due to lack of a road map. This doesn't mean you can't get creative in your order just have one and make it clear.

Beyond this I'm willing to vote on just about anything as long as it isn't blatantly offensive. I also really like when debaters try new things so step outside of the box, so especially in PF don't be afraid to try arguments that may not generally be the norm.

Kate Totz Flintridge Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:15 AM CDT

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Bianca Tyson Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Quentin Unsworth Logan HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 2:12 AM MDT

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

Sanjim Uppal Saint Francis HS 6 rounds

Subramaniam Vaikuntam Green Valley High School None

Daniel Waks BASIS Phoenix HS 4 rounds

Mac Walker Copper Hills HS 6 rounds

Christina Wang BASIS Scottsdale HS 6 rounds

Clayton Watson V. Sue Cleveland High School 2 rounds None

Mike Welty Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Anna Williams Park City 4 rounds

Maggie Woodward Flintridge Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:30 AM PDT

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

David Wornow College Prep 6 rounds

Michael Wornow College Prep 6 rounds

Stan Zou BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2019 — AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges