Villiger 39 St Josephs University
2018 — PA/US
Jennifer Adams Paradigm
First and foremost, I am looking for clear contentions and well argued impacts with a clear and obvious structure. While presentation is not the deciding factor, it does affect how persuasive your arguments ultimately are. That being said, whichever side that conveys the best evidence and best rebuts their opponents will win.
Still, as a judge, clarity is important. Competitors have a tendency to believe that if they speak more and very fast then their arguments will be better and they will win the debate. However, this might instead muddle your points and rationale and end up hurting your arguments. It must be stressed that clear arguments coupled with empirical evidence wins debates not shouting out as many sources, reasons, and data as possible.
Finally, understanding and properly refuting the other side's argument is pivotal. The debate should not just be which side has the most evidence, but also which side can best defend their evidence and arguments.
Jack Bibbiano Paradigm
I did Public Forum in high school and now I am a student UPenn.
I only weigh offense in the final focus if it was brought up in the summary speech. Explain your warrants and extend some defense. Impact analysis, weighing through framework, and turns are ways to win my ballot.
Tori Bolase Paradigm
TL;DR: Flow judge. Speed is fine but please do a lot of weighing in summary and final focus regardless of how quickly you speak.
I am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and I am currently studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. In high school, I did Public Forum on the local, state, and national circuits. I currently debate for Penn's premier competitive debate team on the APDA circuit (parliamentary) and I compete regularly.
I have a preference for arguments that have realistic and probabilistic impacts. That is to say, if you are impacting to nuclear war or some shit like that, you really have to show a strong link chain. I will still weigh low probability impacts in the round but unless you make the links and warrants obvious, it isn't clear why I should care too much if there isn't much evidence that it will happen.
Also, I would really like to see any arguments that you talk about in final focus to be in your summary. I am a pretty flow judge, and I like to see coverage of all points in rebuttal. However, I'm not going to drop you because you don't address one blippy card in constructive. I'm pretty flow and ok with speed so go as fast as you think is appropriate for Public Forum.
Also, please don't be a dick.
I'm serious. I will hand out really low speaker points if you are condescending or dismissive of any debaters, especially in cross. don't be afraid to be aggressive or passionate, but please refrain from communicating in a manner that would make others feel unwelcome. I want to discourage bad debate norms, so I will reduce speaks if I feel the need to.
On that note, I tend to give speaks between 27-29 for varsity debaters. If I don't give you something in that range, I will usually tell you why in my RFD. I try to give feedback that is helpful and constructive; I was a novice trainer at my high school for two years so I hope my RFD is something you can learn from regardless of whether or not you win. Please don't postround me. :)
Andrew Ceonzo Paradigm
James Coburn Paradigm
Tess Donohue Paradigm
Public Forum was devised to convince the average person on the street. I’m that person. Speak clearly at a normal speed and I’ll be able to make a reasoned decision. You are all great kids. Have fun!
Jonathan Freedman Paradigm
My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for two years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.
I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but not in front of me. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.
Carlos Freyre Paradigm
Hello! I did Debate for 4 years at Western Highschool and I consider myself a classic flow judge. Here are my ground rules.
For LD specifically,
I believe that debate is a game and that it should be played however you want it to be. I'll accept any argument as long as it's not obviously sexist/racist/or homophobic. Just be comfortable!
1. If you make me laugh you get a 30.
2. First Sum does not need defense, the second Sum, however, does. There is one caveat to this rule and it is if the second rebuttal decides to frontline, then I think it would be advantageous to frontline back.
3. Don't be rude in cross and if you are please mop them. Additionally, I dislike snarkiness outside of crosses especially, you will be really docked on speaks if you do this.
4. Don't power-tag/read fake evidence, I will most likely call for it and if I have been judging enough on a topic and know your card is entirely fake, you'll suffer for it.
5. Don't spread or read theory/K's unless there is actual abuse/problem with the topic.
6. Every Speach past constructive needs to give me a clear off-time roadmap.
7. Generally, I am tech over truth, however, if you read something completely ridiculous you have to have either amazing frontlines or they'd have to completely screw up their responses.
8. I am good with flex prep as long as it's not done abusively and both teams agree.
9. You can't kick turns by accepting a non-unique in final focus and if you do it in any speech you've gotta apply their non-unique to the turns.
10. Keep each others prep in check.
Deepak Gada Paradigm
I am a parent judge. This is my 1st year of judging Public Forum. I value clear arguments and well structured cases. I prefer debater to be slower and clear in explaining their cases.
Shaojing Guo Paradigm
Bobby Hausen Paradigm
Susan Hayes Paradigm
I am tabula rasa. Speed is fine.Open CX OK, open rebuttal NOT OK. Will vote on T only if it is clearly untopical- FXT is of more interest. OK with K but Alts need to be actionable.
Tori Hoffner Paradigm
Ramesh Karri Paradigm
I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I have been judging for a few years now. Please speak slowly and clearly, no jargon. You should concentrate on the 1-2 most relevant arguments at the end of the round and point out to me why I should vote on those. If you want to win off of an argument, please highlight it in the summary and reiterate it in the final focus speeches. Please be civil to your competitors.
Hari Kumar Paradigm
Brandon Lu Paradigm
I debated 4 years of PF for Ridge in high school and I currently do policy for NYU. I will try to adapt as best as possible to debaters but sometimes I might not be able to so please ask questions on anything you're unsure about. I've found that I am enjoying K affs a lot recently, so I would be very happy to see one read in front of me (30 speaks in PF).
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (email@example.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
I am the master of the bid round.
I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.
Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.
Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments. However, there's no way for me to prevent myself from hearing new responses, so I will allow a much lower threshold for responses to new responses in later speeches.
I do not believe that the 2nd rebuttal should have to respond to the first rebuttal, but the 2nd summary should extend defense to the 1st summary. I'm fine with a split in second rebuttal and consider it useful sometimes, especially if there's off case offense in the first rebuttal. I consider new off case offense in 2nd rebuttal abusive and it is a voting issue if brought up by the other team.
I will extend dropped defense for you from any speech to the end, unless it is responded too. This means that any extensions through ink are illegitimate as long as the response is responsive. That being said, any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. Turns must be extended like offense or I will consider them dropped, but you can extend them as terminal defense from rebuttal to final focus.
In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).
How to win my ballot:
Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impact and WEIGH IT. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that, for example, econ is more important than lives.
I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).
I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to. I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).
I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.
I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.
Things I like:
Weighing- PLEASE WEIGH!!! It's here for the second time for a reason. Especially if you and your opponents have different impacts.
Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.
Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.
Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).
Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.
A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it. That being said, I need to understand the K, so you shouldn't read anything like psychoanalysis.
Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.
Kicking the case for no reason. My former partner has developed a "strategy" of kicking case and going for turns because he thinks it's fun. It's probably not the most strategic way to win rounds and it's a little annoying if the turn is blippy. Sometimes this is a good strategy and you will be rewarded, but most of the time, case shouldn't be kicked.
Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.
Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice.
Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.
Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).
Obvious and excessive trolling. Over trolling will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.
Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.
Things I hate:
New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.
Paraphrasing evidence in case- I don't like it but teams seem to do it anyway no matter what I do so I can't really do anything about it, but please don't. It's bad for debate.
Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact. However, I will not intervene randomly on evidence unless given a reason to.
How I award speaks:
30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.
29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.
28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.
27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.
26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm completely.
Below 25- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)
Extra 1 speak if you cater the round. That's food for me and your opponents.
Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.
I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.
I default to reasonability for theory debates (if you run theory on novices and they mention reasonability, it is terminal defense). On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg.
I will adjudicate a TKO if someone decides to go for it. If you believe at any point in the debate that you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (dropped terminal d overview, dropped prereq case arg, theory, k, irreparable strategic error), you can stop the round and ask me to evaluate it. If you are right, you win with 30s; if you are wrong, you lose with 28s. Many rounds I've judged were over in first summary. It's usually very obvious if you are able to call a TKO.
If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.
You can request my flow after the round but by doing so you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.
If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.
I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people.
Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts
TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.
Please put me on the email chain.
I'm not very familiar with most philosophy.
I'm most familiar with LARP: Check out my policy paradigm for that.
K: I like Ks. I don't know much K lit so avoid reading something like psychoanalysis, but everything else is fine. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.
Nontopical affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.
Tricks: I don't like voting off one line in a speech but I'll still do it.
Performance: Not the most familiar so you'll need to do some handholding. As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.
Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.
I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.
I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've mostly read policy on Aff and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. I've judged some performances before and voted for them.
I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have the tightest link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me.
DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me.
CPs: I believe that CPs should test how plan texts are written so I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory but I don't automatically vote down any abusive CPs. CPs must have competition in some way, usually through a net benefit. I enjoy arguments about how CP solves better than case.
Ks: I am not familiar at all with much K lit which means you must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- actually explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. That being said, I'm a very K friendly judge. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it.
Fw: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow.
T: I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Can be changed.
Theory: I default to reasonability and drop the argument. Can be changed. If you win an RVI I'll vote on it.
Lillian Lyons Paradigm
Elizabeth MacEnulty Paradigm
I am a history teacher from Bronx Science, and I have limited experience judging Novice/JV PF and LD. I have judged policy debate before, but am a lay judge.
Since, I am a lay judge, this means NO SPREADING!
I am not familiar with progressive arguments, such as Ks, complex frameworks and philosophies, CP’s, DA’s, theory/T, or anything else of the sort. If you still want run it, please explain the concept as clear as possible.
This is my first tournament on this topic, so please explain your arguments clearly. If I do not understand your arguments, that will impact how i evaluate the round.
Give a clear overview, sign post well, make clear extensions with tags and author names, and do not use jargon!
Please keep CX respectful and I will not tolerate any form of bigotry or -isms.
Christopher Maravilla Paradigm
Ryan McEvoy Paradigm
Bonnie McKelvie Paradigm
Don't be rude. Be conscious of how you talk to people during the round (including your opponents, your partner, and me). I probably won't flow cross, but that doesn't mean I won't write a note if something important comes up or you curse out your opponent. There's no need to speed through important parts of your argument. I'm going to flow, but if you rely only on technical skills you're probably not going to get high speaks.
You need to have links and impacts. If you don't have links, it's probably just a claim that I can't trust. If you don't have impacts, I probably won't have a reason to care.
Weigh or get smacked.
Ask me any questions before the round.
Amisha Mehta Paradigm
I am a lawyer, Co-Director of the Westfield Debate Team and Co-Chair of the NYCUDL Board.
I have judged PF for the last 2 years, over 75 rounds.
I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.
Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.
If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.
Write my RFD for me in final focus.
Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).
In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.
Good luck and have fun!
Jeremy Metz Paradigm
Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).
Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.
Tina Moon-Lee Paradigm
Although I “flow” arguments on a flow pad, please note that I am not a technical judge which provides points here and there and tries to determine which arguments were “carried” to the end of the round or which ones were “dropped”. Instead, I flow to help me keep track of the arguments that are made by both sides and the critical analysis that is conveyed to me to support or refute arguments. Please use the crossfires to ask each other questions and speak to each other, rather than addressing me and asking me to take note of certain statements (which can and should be done during summary and final focus). Consider the final focus as the points I should consider in my reason for judgement write up.
Please weigh, as I find this to be critical to my analysis.
Use "cards" only to support your analysis, not to say "my card is better than your card". A round that heavily relies on "card" after "card" has missed the mark of what debate is about.
Robert Nesbit Paradigm
Shawn Nix Paradigm
I began as a parent LD judge in 2001 and judged over many years. Since 2014, I have coached Public Forum and Speech and am the current Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina. In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh the round. Speed speaking isn't real world and I won't flow what I can't understand. Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. I look for logical links to impact, clear organized argumentation that tells me how to vote. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Have fun and enjoy the activity!
For Speech events. I am always enthusiastic about great cutting and a good story in interp. In platform events, great organization is invaluable. That gets you to the tournament. During competition, show me you believe what you are telling me!
James Nycz Paradigm
Laura O'Brien Paradigm
Jim Poyner Paradigm
I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.
I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.
I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.
When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.
The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.
Seema Razdan Paradigm
Bryan Supran Paradigm
Lay judge who votes on quality and weighing of arguments.
Don't go tech, but I can deal with complex arguments if explained well.
Be polite to you opponents. Snide or disparaging remarks are not appreciated. Debating is more than arguing.
I will call cards myself if something sounds wrong. If you deliberately misuse evidence, it will undermine your credibility overall with me in the round.
Ryan J Swartz Paradigm
Presentation Matters: Do not spread your case (or rebuttals). If I can't hear or understand your arguments, then they have no impact.
No Round Disclosures.
No Oral Critiques.
Greg Titman Paradigm
I have been judging/coaching debate since 2012. In high school, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and dabbled a handful of times in Public Forum Debate (referred to as Ted Turner Debate at the time). Because of my background in speech, delivery remains an important factor in my decision in so far as I must be able to understand the arguments that you are presenting. In other words, do NOT spread! To me, spreading is antithetical to effective communication, which is ultimately the reason we are here - to communicate arguments for or against a proposed resolution.
I subscribe to the school of thought that Public Forum is intended to be a lay person's debate in that anybody, regardless of their background knowledge on the subject matter or debate experience, should be able to sit-in on a round and follow each side's argumentation. As it was once explained to me, your grandmother should be able to listen to your case/speech and understand what you are saying.
An effective argument consists of three key components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact (STATE It, SUPPORT It, EXPLAIN It). An emphasis on any one of these facets at the exclusion of the others results in an incomplete argument. You can't win a debate with incomplete arguments! I say all this because over the past 6 years of coaching I have witnessed a shift in emphasis away from holistic argumentation to an over-reliance upon evidence. Sure, evidence is important, but far too many debates that I've judged have devolved into a clash over whose evidence is superior or who has provided a greater quantity. As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once claimed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Use evidence to support your contentions and your rebuttals, but also provide an explanation as to how it links back into the bigger picture argument that you are trying to make. Logic can be just as effective a tool in a debate as qualitative and quantitative evidence.
In terms of the logistics for the round:
- "Off-time road-maps" are fine, but should be brief.
- You may time yourself, but my timer is the official time piece for the round.
- Individual crossfires should be standing. Grand crossfire can be seated or standing (debaters' discretion).
- Rarely, if ever, should you need to ask to see the opponent's evidence (see comments above). Teams use this as a tactic for gaining additional prep time while their opponent finds the card/original source. If you ask to see the opponents' evidence, it will count against your prep time, even while they are locating it. With that being said, each team should have their evidence (card and original source) readily available to produce should it be requested by the opponent.
Jason Wang Paradigm
Heng Wang Paradigm
The Guide to Public Forum Debate stresses remarkably that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I really resonate to this statement thus have my preferences below.
Normal speed: Please don't speak too fast. If you believe you have to speak fast or you cannot complete your messages in time, you need to cut your contents to make your messages concise.
Straightforward：Please express yourself in natural way to be understood.
Clear structure: Please integrate all of your points and keep them consistent through the entire session.
Have a fun!
( I am a lay judge.)
Katelynn Warmblod Paradigm
I have high school extemp. experience and college parli debate experience.
Basic round guidelines:
-General courtesy towards other debaters. No personal attacks. Good sportsmanship greatly appreciated before, during, and after rounds.
-Be careful about making large scale claims about minority/marginalized groups, arguments need to be more general (i.e. people in x situation generally do y. NOT this group does y in x situation.). In my mind this is the easiest way to create a friendly and educational environment that doesn't exclude people or make them uncomfortable.
-Heavier on content than delivery, but delivery must be understandable, (i.e. slow enough to understand, If you do spread, I'll do my best to flow and follow the speech but if it's too fast, the arguments get dropped) have a sense of clarity, and some composure.
-Round clash is important
-Don't just read off the stats and references, make me care. Otherwise the numbers fall short.
-I will always be willing to give some form of feedback after the round if you ask. Depending on the time constraint, I will give a general round overview, key details that stood out, and/or answer any questions you may have.
-Post-rounding me will not change my mind.