University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament
2018 — Ann Arbor, MI, MI/US
Liliana Arida-Moody Paradigm
Jeff Bankowski Paradigm
Dan Berwick Paradigm
Mateusz Borowiecki Paradigm
Christopher Bryant Paradigm
I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge. That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential. If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say. I also believe that clarity is important. Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent. In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.
Matthew Burtell Paradigm
Emily Carroll Paradigm
I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.
My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.
My background- I debated policy in high school. I now coach public forum and LD for Homewood Flossmoor HS, a suburb south of Chicago. I am comfortable with a reasonable amount of spreading and will let you know if I cannot understand you.
Good luck and have fun!
William Caugherty Paradigm
As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.
I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.
I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.
For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.
Alex Dantu Paradigm
Claire Denton Paradigm
Ben Fisher Paradigm
Frameworks are important to me. Frameworks help debaters specify the work their points do to advance the pro or con. More importantly, frameworks take away the need for the judge to make subjective value assessments that affect the outcome of the case.
If you provide a framework, show that your framework is better than the opponents', and prove your side upholds that framework, you are very likely to win.
Karen Haddas Paradigm
Mackenzie Hagood Paradigm
I have been in the debate world for 7 years as a head coach and a debater. I debated public forum all through-out high school. After high school I founded and coached the Saline Middle School Debate Team. If you bring me a grande chai tea latte, I'm not saying I will give you higher speaks, but I will definitely be in a better round which will likely be beneficial to everyone's scores from that round.
In a round I prefer road mapping (organized speech pattern), evidence, and follow through. DO NOT road map outside of speaker time. You are in public forum not policy, don't steal extra time. If you do road map outside of time I will take speaker points and be frustrated thriugh-out your speech. Don't scream in crossfire, be nice to reach other.
During crossfire be civil. Per MIFA rules judges are not supposed to be voting based off of crossfire, so I will only take comments in crossfire into consideration if it is brought up during a timed speech before final focus. (Exception to this would be statements from grand crossfire.)
I give long verbal critics at the end so be prepared! I hate writing down my RFD's so I will likely just do it verbally.
Sara Hart Paradigm
Seonag Imfeld Paradigm
Sandeep Jejurikar Paradigm
I was a varsity policy debater in high school and am an experienced parent judge. I have judged over 40 varsity public forum rounds including the 2019 IHSA State Debate Championship and the 2019 National Speech and Debate Tournament. A few paradigms:
- I am a flow judge. I expect that debaters will extend evidence properly throughout the round. Any new evidence introduced in Final Focus will be disregarded.
- I am fine with speed. However, if I cannot understand your speech, I will not flow it. If you spread, you will lose!
- I will not flow Crossfire, but many rounds are won or lost here. If you have "won" in Crossfire, mention it in a later speech and it will be noted.
- I strongly encourage all debaters to weigh their impacts towards the end of the round. Success here will likely win you my ballot.
Best of luck!
Michelle Kahlenberg Paradigm
Nicole Kroepel Paradigm
I have been coaching and judging PF for ten years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged 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.
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, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me. I will stop flowing if you are speaking too fast, so please pay attention to that.
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.
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.
I expect that extensions are 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 withtout 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. I am tech over truth, so I go based on the round and what is true in the scope of the debate.
For January specifically:
This topic has harms that were pre-existing, so uniqueness is definitely a factor for pro teams. Be sure that you engage with this as much as possible. Con teams please do not just read a bunch of non-unique responses. Interact with your opponents' case as much as possible. If you are going to engage in economics as part of your debate, make sure you understand the economics you are running or using to respond. Poorly done ecconomics contentions/responses can be blippy and hard to follow. If you are going to engage in the policitcal climate/policies/elections in the United States, these arguments need to be warranted and explained and must be logical and realistic.
Nancy Lynch Paradigm
Marcus Mangal Paradigm
I debated Policy for 4 years at Homewood Flossmoor, graduating in 2015. I am now a senior at the University of Michigan, studying Mechanical Engineering. I have no Public Forum experience but am interested in hearing any argument you want to give. Just have fun.
Jim Meloche Paradigm
Stephanie Oakland Paradigm
Don Packard Paradigm
Susan Pingel Paradigm
John Rafferty Paradigm
Anish Ravipati Paradigm
4/10/18 TOC Update:
I'm probably more flay than flow relative to this tournament. I never debated on a progressive circuit, so know that I don't feel comfortable voting off of plans, kritiks, or theory. If topicality is argued well, I can vote off of it. I can try to keep up with speed, just keep it clear.
My biggest request is don't go for everything on the flow. I really value very well weighed arguments and will base my vote on arguments that are well-supported, well-defended, and weighed throughout the round.
I debated for four years at Dublin Jerome HS in Dublin, OH, and currently attend the University of Michigan.
There are a few important things I look for when judging rounds:
1. Rhetoric - be well-versed on the topic. Fluent rhetoric on the resolution, your arguments, and the context of your arguments is very important to me. Public Forum is still an event about presentation and persuading an audience.
2. Evidence - cards are important, but be cautious: I will probably not flow the source of every single card, so referencing what the card said in summary/final focus is important to keep me on page i.e. don’t just say “extend Smith” actually tell me what Smith said.
3. Crossfire - I'm not flowing crossfire, but they usually help me decipher arguments. I'm not looking for a "gotcha!" in crossfire, but I want issues with arguments to be clarified before the debate is done. Also, please cut your opponent off if they are giving a speech instead of an answer. I don't want to hear a speech any more than you do. Good jokes in crossfire will raise speaker points.
4. Summary - if you haven't introduced a framework (or weighing mechanism or anything for me to evaluate arguments in the round on) by now, introduce and justify one in summary. Then you have to actually use the framework to weigh your arguments. I'm not looking for a "he said this, but it's wrong because of A/B/C," but for a "he said this, but it's wrong because of A/B/C, but even if he's right, we outweigh because of A/B/C". If you don’t give me a clear framework to weigh your arguments under, then I will make up my own framework for the round and if you do not weigh, then I will be forced to weigh for you; I was first speaker and not that good at weighing, so trust me when I say that you don’t want me to do this and will probably end up intervening. Additionally, signposting is key. If I don't know exactly where you are on the flow, I will stop paying attention to your speech until I can find it.
5. Final Focus - this is your time to really buy me over. My comments about summary carry over into final focus, and I will permit rebuttal to final focus extensions for first speaking teams if signposted well. Don't get caught up in every single card you used in the debate: pick a few important ones and really dive deep into why I should vote for you.
6. Respect - respect your opponents just as much as you pretend to respect me. You're all incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to do debate in high school, and I will not tolerate any ad hominem attacks on opponents or any types of offensive arguments.
7. Speed - you're not going to get a 30 if you give your speeches at 800+ wpm. You need to slow down at the important parts, but you can speed up when reading cards.
Other tips about speaking points:
1. Composure - take prep time to gather your thoughts because I expect speeches to be as fluent as possible.
2. Round control - even if you're losing, make sure you maintain confidence. Controlling crossfires and exuding confidence in your speeches is important.
Finally, have fun with it! Debate was my favorite extracurricular in high school and every round is an unforgettable memory. If you want oral critique, advice for college, or funny jokes, feel free to come up to me at any time during the tournament or friend me on Facebook.
Robert Reilly Paradigm
My name Is Robert Reilly
I look for a clear and substantiated case supported with evidence. I believe that most debates are won in the strength of your arguments and your detailed and specific rebuttal against your opponents arguments.
I don't like uneccesary quantifications. I also don't like unwarranted agressiveness or rude behavior in round. Debaters should win and lose with class. Thank you.
Tammy Remington Paradigm
Charles Rennie Paradigm
- Be respectful of our opponents.
- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.
- Make your case and make it very clear to me.
- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must
EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.
- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.
- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one
team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.
DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or
"do you agree?"
- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!
- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe
your team is winning.
1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.
2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you
believe you have blocked in your opponents case.
- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of
50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt
your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)
will vote for.
- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;
thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.
Ana Sirviente Paradigm
Lacie Smith Paradigm
About Me: I went to a small high school and took debate class for all four years. I participated in policy debate, but we often did not compete in co-curricular events. I also joined the CMU Debate team for a semester and participated in Lincoln Douglas debate. In 2007, I judged forensics for MIFA as a student teacher at Utica High School. It has been about 10 years, but I just started coaching and judging Public Forum debate for Utica High School.
Judging Criteria: Providing framework is important, along with clear road mapping throughout your speech. Repeat your framework throughout the speech and adhere to that in your final focus. I usually flow the entire debate and judge primarily off of the flow, but I also weigh persuasiveness, evidence, logic, and refutations. I pay close attention to "dropped" arguments, so I suggest that you and your partner flow as to refute their arguments. Clash is very important to me in a debate. Use all of your speaker time - I am looking for your speech to refute the other teams' arguments, then strengthen your teams' arguments with supplemental evidence. Clear communication is important. Make eye contact as frequent as possible, I also prefer a conversational style, opposed to jargon that a "lay" judge would not understand. I am judging based on the quality of your arguments made - not the quantity. Speakers should appear confident, with clear, logical relevant arguments and recent evidence.
I like confidence in a speaker, but I do not like cockiness or being mean while debating. This is supposed to be fun and educational, so I expect you to keep it classy. Do not look at each other during cross fire - you are trying to persuade me - not your opponent. Do not make statements during cross fire - save that for your summary or final focus. Ask meaningful questions during cross fire, as it can be a turning point for a debate. I am not going to judge a debate based on how "pretty" you speak, but I take your communication style along with case, evidence & arguments into consideration.
Hanhzen Sun Paradigm
I'm a parent (lay) judge. Use plain English and avoid debate jargon. Do not speak too fast. If you do, you may lose me. If you lose me in your speeches or arguments, you may lose the debate round. I hope your logic and communication is as clear as mine here. In other words, the burden is on you to make sure I can clearly understand your arguments so slow down, especially with author names and sources. Spell out acronyms the first time you use them, and avoid using too many of them. Remember, you are trying to convince a member of the general public (instead of a domain expert) to agree with you.
Try your best to weigh all arguments and impacts to convince me why you should win.
If you could help me keep each other's time, that would be great (I will be timing too).
Be respectful even when you strongly disagree. Rudeness will not be tolerated. Friendly challenges are welcome.
Have fun, it is just a debate. And, I believe having fun is the best way to learn and grow.
Shelly Venema Paradigm
Lindi Wang Paradigm
Hi! I'm a parent judge! I expect debaters to be courteous to each other. Please no spreading. I think that I am more interested in TRUE arguments rather than wacky, random arguments.
I don't keep track of time, so i leave that up to both teams to check each others times.
At the end of the round, if there are directly conflicting pieces of evidence, I will most likely call for them, so be prepared.
Changqing Xie Paradigm
I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents