King Round Robin
2019 — Houston, TX/US
Allen Abbott Paradigm
"Back in my day, we only had two minutes to give our summaries!"
Hi I'm Allen and I'm an old second-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. Last year, 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 at Glenbrooks and the occasional Tabroom stalk.
Outside of debate, I'm a second-year at UChicago studying data science economics and various interdisciplinary fields in the qualitative social sciences. I don't know much about the topic, but I do have a strong academic and professional background in IR. Specifically, I have a lot of academic familiarity with secrecy in international relations, which may be of particular relevance to this topic (shoutout to Professor Austin Carson, who broke consecutively at the NDT last decade).
For those of you who had me as a judge last year: 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 and I don't personally know the topic arguments or lit, so I will have very few implicit biases walking into the round).
Important: please don't be afraid to debate fast, tech, complex, or however else you want. I still remember how debate works (I'm not that old) and I've been doing finger exercises (i.e. flowing Nueva CS rounds) for a month to prepare to flow at high speeds for Glenbrooks.
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 by 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.
Automatic 30 for a Coke Zero (not a Coke Zero Sugar) or freshly made risotto (recipe below).
Allen's Signature Parmesan Risotto
-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)
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).
Cara Day Paradigm
*Updated for Nocember 2019*
St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21
Or FB message me with questions
I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.
-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.
*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.
-Speed: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing and tank your speaks. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.
-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.
-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol
-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting. Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.
-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).
- CX is binding
- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.
- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.
- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)
-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech.
-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.
- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)
I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: be funny, go for the right things in later speeches, speak clearly, make CX interesting. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.
Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.
If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/
If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.
Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.
My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.
Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.
2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).
Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF.
I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.
Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)
Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1
Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1
Ideal FWs: 1
Non-T Affs: 5
Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs. I think DA turns the AC args are some of my favorite to vote on. Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.
FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc
Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.
If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.
Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.
Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.
DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.
Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!
If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.
The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.
Ethan Eyre Paradigm
Last edited: 10/17/19
Experience: I do policy debate at the University of Houston, and competed in LD and extemp for all for years of high school. Went to VBI, TFA elims, NSDA nats, and UIL finals a few times.
General: Not a tab judge - I evaluate based on what issues become important in the round. Familiar with K and theory debate. No real preference as to what kind of argument you run, as long as you understand what you're saying. That said, please don't say things that are just blatantly not true. I try to intervene as little as possible, so I won't be making any assumptions for you, even if an argument isn't very convincing. No problem with non-T affs, just develop the ballot well.
Framework: In terms of the top layer of the debate, you have to tell me whether that's K or theory/T or else I weigh through the impact calc on your voters. I like pretty much any kind of framework debate as long as you give me a mechanism by which to evaluate the round. A good amount of my experience and knowledge is with semiotics and linguistics, but I'll also evaluate pretty much anything as long as you articulate how the ballot and weighing work.
Theory: I default to reasonability, so if you want competing interps, make that argument. Using theory as a strategy is okay, but if the argument is frivolous, I'll probably be a lot less responsive to it. Don't expect me to give a lot of weight to you extending a spike unless you flesh it out further.
CX: Don't make CX an attitude competition (please), you don't really gain anything from it and it just makes the debate less enjoyable. I'd prefer if you don't use cx as additional prep.
Speed: As far as speed goes, it shouldn't be an issue as long as you're clear. I'll say clear once and flow everything I can hear after that. Slow down on tags/authors and advocacy texts.
Speaker Points: I view speaker points as a mechanism for determining who should break, rather than just if you spoke well. Accordingly, if it's a high-level close round, points will be high and close, but if it's not a good round, points will be lower.
At the end of the day, clarity will be your best friend, both in terms of speed but also in terms of developing the ballot. If I don't understand an argument because you haven't explained it well or developed it, it's impossible for me to vote on it.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.
For email chains, use: email@example.com
Paulina Ezquerra Paradigm
Nate Galang Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Klein HS, Seven Lakes HS, McMillen NG, Jack C. Hays HB, Village AI
K (high theory): 1
LARP: 1 or 2
K (identity politics): 3
5 minutes before the round
I will evaluate any argument that:
a. Has a warrant
b. Does not render debate unsafe
It would be helpful if you do these things:
1. Pop tags, author names, and pause at the end of cards or when switching between sheets. It makes speeches so much easier to follow.
2. Slow down on interps, standard/role of the ballot texts, and advocacy texts. I don't think anyone will but if you do I'll appreciate it a lot and might bump speaks a tiny bit.
3. Give me a ballot story at the end of the round.
I debated for Klein from 2014 to 2018, starting with PF in freshman year and switching to LD halfway through sophomore year. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and octofinaled at TFA.
I went for a few different styles of arguments, primarily high-theory kritiks, social contract theory, and soft-left policy affirmatives.
Explain and over-explain your arguments. If you give me contextual, comparative analysis and weighing, it'll make it easier for me to understand your arguments (and it will probably help your speaks).
If something doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't evaluate it. I don't look at speech docs during the round. This doesn't mean every word has to be crystal-clear or that you can't make fast arguments, it just means that if you are going to make blippy arguments, delineate between them well enough that I can catch a warrant in the few seconds you spend making each argument.
Tech > truth unless you say something that's outright false.
LARP/Policy arguments Plan + Advantage(s)
This was my a-strat most of senior year. I mostly read soft-left affs, but if you want to go for three extinction scenarios then do your thing.
Develop a ballot story for the plan. Explain how the plan resolves the specific harms raised in the advantage(s) and collapse to/expand upon specific warrants in later speeches.
Good solvency wins ballots. If you have good empirical solvency with well-explained reasons why your evidence is contextual to the topic and solves the advantage(s), you'll have a good time.
I'm good with this. Please don't go for everything in the 2NR. Give a good explanation of the overall DA story and how it turns/outweighs/interacts with the case. Similarly, give a good 2NR explanation of how the CP solves the case especially if the advocacy is some obscure policy.
Since my background is in LD, I will evaluate CP theory to a far greater degree than a lot of people with policy backgrounds. I'll evaluate things like one condo CP bad, one dispo CP bad, etc.
This is what I did most often in high school. I read mostly high-theory kritiks and also some stock kritiks like cap. The authors I'm most familiar with are Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Weheliye, and Bataille (a little bit). I'm not as fond of identity politics and it was never what I read during high school, but I think there can be excellent rounds on identity politics.
I like any and all K debate done well. By extension, bad K debate will make me really sad. Don't read a K just because it's what I like. I would much rather see you read something you like and read it well than read the K poorly.
If the 2NR has a really long overview with a ton of embedded clash, don't be surprised if you're not happy with how I resolve the debate. Do the work on the line-by-line and implicate arguments on specific sheets to resolve clash instead of reading a 4-minute overview that your coach wrote for you.
Explain what your author says. Don't rely on my prior knowledge of your author to substitute for your explanation. Don't expect me to examine speech docs to try and piece together what your argument was saying after the round. I need to understand your version of the argument.
I did a decent amount of this my senior year. Some phil debate, especially all-analytic frameworks, is really hard to flow. Try to delineate between arguments clearly and give me time to catch up when you're blazing through analytics.
Similar to what I wrote on K debate, don't assume I know what your author says and give your own explanation of the argument.
Theory is fine. I don't care whether you use theory to check abuse or if you just use it as a strategic tool.
Give a clear abuse story. Unified analysis in terms of how you approach answering the counter-interp and developing offense on the interp will make evaluating the round way easier.
I don't think I should ever have to have "defaults" on theory because you should be implicating everything in the shell. But I'll default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.
Delineate between arguments to make them easier to follow. Theory debates are really fast so please try to minimize how blippy you are.
If you're extemping theory, you should pre-write your interp.
Weigh early with theory, especially since you often have fewer speeches on theory (i.e. if it gets introduced in the 1AR). Make them count and make sure that I know how different standards interact as quickly as possible.
I think that disclosure is probably good in general. If you're from a big school or you have bids, you basically have no excuse for not disclosing.
I'm sympathetic to small schools not disclosing. I was the only LDer from my school and I disclosed, but I get why not everyone would want to.
Be honest about your arguments. I don't like the sketchy kind of tricks debate that happens where people are super evasive in CX. If you want to go for presumption/permissibility triggers that's fine, but don't intentionally make arguments unclear in order to gain an advantage. If you do, you will probably be unhappy with how I render my decision.
If you make me laugh I'll probably bump your speaks. Don't be mean pls
Michelle Harrosh Paradigm
Please offer strong narrative for your case and clear explanation of concepts/arguments. Please do not speak too quickly, as I am a lay judge and would like to take in the details of your case.
Angela Ho Paradigm
The very first thing I'll tell you is that being nice/polite is the number one thing to me in a round because I don't think rudeness is necessary for debate and takes away from the actual education. Second is that I judge based on logic. Make sure all arguments are logically thought out instead of just running them for the sake of running an argument and not being able to explain the argument. Make me want to vote for you. Don't be fake. I cannot stand the extra fluff.
I HATE excessive waste of time. As soon as the constructive is over, CX starts. As soon as there is silence, prep time needs to be used. Failure to be efficient will result in flashing counting as prep.
Overall: There are no arguments that I won't vote on. I look at whatever you present to me. I am looking for a clear explanation of the function of the argument in the round, evidence comparison, and a clear decision calculus. Again going with the logic theme. I enjoy both K and traditional debates. I would just like that both teams are clear on which side of the argument they are for. I have voted on plenty of arguments that I don't like so feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with but I will list what I tend to look at in my decision.
Do not get WILD if I cannot fully explain a theory/k background to you. I do not claim to be an expert in literature for different theories/k but if you fail to explain it to me or debate it, that will be how my decision is based.
Flowing: I don't have a problem with spreading; however, I draw the line when you have to gasp and have become even incomprehensible to yourself. I will stop flowing. I personally think it's worthless to spread if you don't use up all of your speech time or not be able to explain your cards. Make sure you pronounce words that will be repeated throughout the round correctly because it does get annoying hearing words incorrectly said over and over and over again. Do not "spread" if you are not able to cover more that regular reading, points deducted.
CX: I don't flow CX, but listen so you can bring it up in your speech for it to be included in my flow. I also don’t count flashing as prep as long as you aren’t abusing it. Include me if you are doing an email chain.
Things I like: Oncase, Topicality, Disadvantages and Counterplans. Run it and apply it.
Oncase: This is my favorite. I like knowing the flaws of the case and have it pointed out.
Topicality: Make sure you uphold standards and voters and give me a reason to prefer your definition.
Disadvantages: The uniqueness and link to the case are important to me. Push your impacts and weigh your impacts.
CP: Make sure you explain why it solves better than the Aff.
Things I don’t like: Ks, Theory and Framework. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them. I just prefer concrete evidence as opposed to analytical.
K: I am okay if you ran a K (In fact, I enjoy seeing which K is used for the round and how it is executed). I will only evaluate Kritiks if they are ran properly otherwise I'm not the biggest fan of them. I will vote for them even if I personally do not agree with them. I do want a quick overview of the K being ran, just because I am not fully read on all the different philosophies (but I have dabbled into them so I am not completely in the dark). If you run a K just make sure to explain the ideology of the author. Make sure the ALT is explained, carried throughout the round, and that it is a better outcome for the scenario. Once again, I do not claim this area to be my expertise so do not get wild if I cannot give you a long winded rfd because I do not know the literature.
Theory/Framework:It probably will bore me, not going to lie. I’ll listen but it’s not my number 1 voter. I will make an exception if you are able to prove to me that it should be weighed first. I will vote for it if one side drops the debate of theory being a prerequisite.
Speaks:For speaker points I don't pay attention to the quality of the argumentation: I look for fluidity, demeanor, tone and courtesy. I will give a low point win if the winning team is being disrespectful, racist, and/or offensive with profanity or anything I deem as inappropriate. I do enjoy humor, sass, Disney and pop culture references so if you can incorporate that appropriately into your speech, then your points will reflect (+.1).
If you have any specific questions, ask me before/after the round starts or email me: email@example.com If not then have fun and run whatever you feel that is best for the round. Good Luck!!
Keith Hoang Paradigm
Layla Hooshmand Paradigm
No line by line in final focus
I prefer traditional and slow debate. I will accept theory and slightly more progressive arguments only if they are fully established in the round.
Clark Johnson Paradigm
A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments
not a good idea to read disclosure theory in front of me unless some shenanigans happened before the round that you can prove, I will vote on it, but it will not be an enjoyable round for me.
If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.
Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.
I tend to find myself defaulting to a policymaker more often than not, but mostly due to a lack of framing of the round, start weighing impacts and explaining to me how I should be looking at the round as early as you can.
I would like to be on the email chain, I usually only bring my iPad with me so flashing will just mean I'll be calling for evidence which just slows down the decision firstname.lastname@example.org
T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.
DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that
CP's: These are fine, I will only engage judge kick if you explicitly tell me to.
K’s: Not my speciality, as long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.
K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, my threshold for framework/T arguments will go down if you can't defend how you are directionally related, that's not to say though that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.
K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponents argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis
if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important
Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.
Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff
I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.
I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.
other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)
im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.
I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.
Davis LaBarre Paradigm
I went to Northland Christian School, and have debated for 4 years. I qualified to the TOC the last 3 of the 4 years.
Paradigm: I default to truth testing, but comparative worlds, can be easily won.
Short Version: Debate is a game. Arguments that argue otherwise, i.e. (role of the ballot, specialized voters on t/theory shells,) are not as persuasive to me. That being said the easiest way to get my ballot is be strategic. Make good choices on the flow and grandstand at the right time. I’m not saying I won’t evaluate arguments like K’s or lengthy philosophical positions, but most of the time people reading them don’t layer the debate well and thus seem not as strategic to me. Surprise me by being unpredictable and you’ll get good speaks. Have fun, it is your debate round.
Speed: I’m fine with speed.
Theory/T: T is an issue of competing interps. Theory is reasonability. Both need an RVI to win a counter interp or I meet. Collapsing to theory in the 1ar is not strategic unless you have to, you shouldn’t. I think theory is drop the argument, while T is drop the debater if it is about their advocacy as a whole, if it is just about an advantage it is also drop the argument. I don’t believe in frivolous theory, I think every shell has a function, even if the function is to be a time suck, which is strategic. Debate is a game of seconds and every second sucked is probably good, especially if your negating. Offensive counter interps need an RVI they are not just offense.
K’s: You can run them if you like. Reading a 7 minute K and not answering or going to the aff is not going to get you great speaks. Also, I think role of the ballot arguments are not as persuasive as arguments that appeal to fairness, because how can I evaluate something that already skews your opponent’s chance of winning. I will still vote on these arguments.
Framework Debate: I don’t understand dense philosophy frameworks too well. Read them and then explain them well in the rebuttals. If you expect me to read evidence on the framework debate, I won’t.
Policy arguments: These are almost as fun as a good theory debate. Be strategic with the plans/counterplans or disads you read. I understand these arguments well and run these types of arguments frequently. I will read evidence on this debate if the debate is not clear or there is no weighing. WEIGH.
Extensions: If there is any ink what so ever on an argument it must require some response before or right after you extend an argument. If they concede an argument then just extend it quickly but spend more time on the implication.
Speaks: I will speaks based on strategy. I will disclose speaks.
-Spikes are fine, but know that they are not as persuasive if they are your strategy.
-Meta theory seems to be unpersuasive.
-I am not persuaded by “multiple shells bad theory” answer the shells.
-Don’t be a jerk it will harm your speaks.
-I won’t vote on things that are morally repugnant.
Ranie Lin Paradigm
1. Defense sticks. Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus. Please collapse and weigh (obviously, right?)
2. Start weighing early. I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus absent any weighing done by either team at any other point in the round.
3. Evidence is meaningless to me if unwarranted. I am very receptive to logical warrants and analysis.
4. Do not sit in the round preflowing while making everyone else wait for you (this is very annoying).
5. I hope this paradigm reflects the style of debate I prefer: concise arguments, no meaningless verbosity, specificity, and coherent organization.
If you have specific questions, ask me before the round begins.
Hadley Luther Paradigm
I am fine with most arguments as long as you are clear and provide understandable edvodence, explanations, and impacts. If you are extending arguments do not simply say cross apply my contention 2, tell me what exactly in contention 2 to cross apply. A prefer a mixture of line by line and big picture, one can be focused on more than the other but Inprefer both being used in round. Tell me why your arguments are important and remember to sign post.
Noah Mengisteab Paradigm
Head Coach Speech and Debate at Duchesne Academy (2017-Present)
Rice University '20 studying Political Science
Important for 2019-2020 Season:
Evidence - I HIGHLY recommend reading card text or at least referring to an accurately cut card in the constructive and rebuttal, not just hyperlinks. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't refer to cut cards then you might want to consider striking me.
There a few reasons why I'm going to be more strict about using cut cards. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. I understand trying to fit as many sources as possible into speeches, but lying about what your evidence says ruins the ethos of the round and cheats everyone of the educational and competitive components of this activity. And I'm tired of calling for evidence that contradicts the warrant read in round.
Disclosure -Disclosure can happen in two ways - either through the wiki or by emailing your opponents and myself prior to the round. While I won't penalize for nondisclosure, you will get +0.3 speaker points for disclosing or sending me case & speech docs and +0.5 for doing both. Misdisclosure is an auto-loss and lowest speaker points allowed.
Accommodations - I'm 100% fine with any accommodations debaters might need. Just communicate what you need before the round. Opponents will also receive the same benefits. If you are an opposing team that disagrees with reasonable accommodations, get over it and just debate.
My views on Public Forum evolved the past season based on observations of rounds and conversations I've had with debaters/coaches. Below are some general things I expect to see when I judge your round as well as my thoughts on progressive debate.
1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm - you have to adequately defend your offense and place defense on your opponents. To me, just having defense is not enough unless you warrant why your terminal defense should be preferred over any offense from the opposing team.
On my flow, offense requires a link/warrant, an impact, and frontlining. Miss one and it will be harder for me to flow your offense.
2.) Speeches must build off of each other. It’s not enough to just read some offense or defense in one speech and only extend it at the very end in the Final Focus. Rebuttals need to be line-by-line with 2nd rebuttals frontlining major turns for at least 30-60 seconds. Any offense or defense you want me to look at on my flow needs to be cleanly extended, especially in the Summary and the Final Focus.
3a.) The Summary and Final Focus MUST MIRROR EACH OTHER! Any OVs, observations, offense, and defense you want me to look at needs to be in BOTH SPEECHES! The burden to extend defense in the summary rests on both teams. I don't care about the 1st speaking team disadvantage in summary because there are other advantages in the round.
3b.) Defense and Offense Structure - Defense on "their case" doesn’t mean you extend every arg from the rebuttal, but extending the most important ones with good analysis (like turns). Offense is super simple - any offense you want me to consider at the end of the round must be in summary. Refer above for the requirements of a proper extension. Please also DO WARRANTED & COMPARATIVE WEIGHING! I have no problem dropping you because you didn’t do a good job extending or weighing in the round. Also, most teams are really bad at line by line. Save yourself and do VOTERS!!!
4.) Evidence – You can expect that I have done quite a bit of research on the topic and will understand most topic args. For the most part, I don’t interfere with the debate and will flow and vote on any arg presented (basically tech over truth). The only times I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) would be when the args/examples presented are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anything ridiculous like "extinction/terrorism good," or when I know a piece of evidence being read is completely misrepresented. I will call for evidence if debaters ask me to or if I find it important in my decision. Cards should be properly cut (refer to the message at the top). And evidence exchange needs to be quick - I will give you 1 min to find evidence. If you go over it, I will start deducting prep time. We need to keep rounds on time. And when a team is finding evidence, no one should be prepping.
Also, it's up to the debaters in the round to call each other out and issue a formal evidence ethics challenge if I don't call for a card.
5.) Disclosure - Refer to the disclosure message above. You should disclose at national circuit tournaments/championships.
6.) Decisions - No matter the tournament (unless explicitly told not to like NSDAs), I will always give a decision and detailed RFD a few minutes after the round. I am constantly thinking about who is winning along with an RFD in my mind and on my flow after each speech. If for some reason you don’t want me to disclose who won, let me know. I'm also willing to answer more questions outside the round and email my flows for you to see how I evaluated the round.
Plans/CPs/DAs - I've always been okay with “specific” plans, “pseudo” CPs, and DAs because I used them during my debate career. Just make sure you "fit" them within PF and the resolution. Debaters who complain about the rules of PF debate when it comes to plans and CPs – get over it and debate.
Kritics - I'm okay with the generic K's people try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism) but I am not familiar with high theory (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).
Theory - Theory is the highest layer of debate. I am okay with just a paragraph or a full shell. For me to extend your theory argument, you need to read it as soon as the abuse occurs. For disclosure/misdisclosure, you need to read it in the constructive since it's essentially abuse before the round. Additionally, theory needs to be extended throughout the debate. Otherwise, it becomes disingenuous and your speaker points will suffer. Evidence of abuse is also needed for theory (especially disclosure related shells). Extending theory your opponents drop is a TKO (auto-win and +0.5 speaks). These theory preferences (except reading disclosure) applies to any tournament round I judge.
1.) Preflow before the round*** otherwise -0.3 speaker points.
2.) Crossfires - It's usually not important to my ballot and I don't flow them. I think it’s more for y'all to clarify your args to each other. If something significant is said in cross-fire, then bring up immediately in the next speech to make it binding. Also, be nice to each other.
3.) Speed - I am okay if you go fast (6-7/10), so long as you are clear. I reserve the right to ask for a speech doc if you went to fast.
[I used to say "micro" spreading but bc of the war against jargon by Jeff Miller & Lyndsey Oliver, I took it out...]
4.) Speaker points - For me, speaker points take into account analysis and persuasiveness. However, debate is an educational activity that requires good use of evidence, so I lean more towards analysis. Scale from 27-30 with everyone starting at a 27. If you get below a 25, you did something unethical in the round. Typically, speaks I give tournaments range from 27-29. Don't expect a 30 just because you won the round.
Yes, add me to your email chain: email@example.com
I didn't do LD in HS, but I've judged some LD rounds the past two years. My paradigm for LD is similar to PF in that I will still look at the round on an offense/defense paradigm. I'll flow any argument you want to present to me (Ks, CPs, DAs, Theory, etc.). Speed is the same as PF. Don't spread. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. At national circuit tournaments, LD should always disclose positions on the wiki.
Questions? Ask before the round
Cassidy RALSTON Paradigm
I competed for two years of high school and have been judging PF for 3 years.
First and foremost, I expect a professional and respectful debate.
I will judge based upon flow, and ulitmately, who wins the argument. Many will ask "big picture or line by line" and I always answer with both - you need to convince me you're the winning team on big picture, but if I can't prove that you won on the flow then you didn't win. No tolerance policy towards running manipulative cases, Ks, no plans or counter plans (plans and counterplans are both against NSDA rules and will result in an automatic downvote).
Make sure that your summaries and final focuses address everything they need to - voters in final focus is important, new arguments in Final focus will not be flowed.
I can handle speed if you're a clear speaker - as long as I can understand you, I'll flow. If you become intelligible, then I will simply put my pen down.
Claudia Ribera Paradigm
Katy Taylor '17
Hello, I’m a junior at Texas and coach CX and LD. I was coached by Elijah Smith (Emporia SW) in high school and he taught me everything I know about debate. This means I've had my fair share of reading and/or coaching teams reading very policy arguments to very critical arguments. I debated nationally in high school and have coached kids in both events to deep elims of tournaments, round robins, and accumulate bids to the TOC.
2019-2020 Conflicts: Houston EP (CX), Alief Kerr EG (CX), Katy Taylor AP (LD), and Guyer CM (LD).
Previous Conflicts: Katy Taylor, Cy-Fair TW, and Woodlands MR
Overall, I think it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and having a clear impact framing because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is place for you to do you. Just like everyone, I have my own predispositions (see further explanation below). However, I make my decisions on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. Have fun and best of luck!
PLEASE put me on the email chain -- if you ask what my email is, I'll assume you didn't read this and be sort of disappointed. firstname.lastname@example.org
Theory: I will default to “competing interps” and “No RVIs” unless told otherwise. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. I will not evaluate the argument. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. Just slow down on interps on shells. Weigh standards!
Frivolous theory/tricks: NO. I will only evaluate policy theory shells.
- Voting Neg on Presumption
- No RVI
Kritiks: I went for the K almost every 2NR the second half of my senior year. I am the most familiar with structural criticisms like Anti-blackness, Settler Colonialism, and Quare/Queerness Kritiks. I am not well versed in post-modernism so please do not blaze through the intricate details of your arguments. Give examples on the link level (super important) and have impact framing because it is incredibly important for you to do that in order to get my ballot. Please include some type of framing so I know what you are talking about.
Performance Debate: I'm always down to listen/watch. You must have a methodology and defend an advocacy. Explain how your performance (aff or neg) does something whether that be within debate or this round etc.
Topicality: Yes. Just weigh in the debate and generate offense. I don't vote for RVI's on T because that doesn't make sense and I will not vote for Nebel T.
Framework: "I will vote on T in policy debates. I probably won't vote on T in K debates. I will vote on T in K debates if you go for compelling education arguments. If the Aff ( K or Not) thinks debate is a game I find fairness arguments compelling." - Eli's paradigm.
Policy: Go for it. I usually read a policy aff if I didn't read a K aff. Counterplans are cool and you must have net benefits on it. Be ready to have the textual/functional competition debate. I don't care for condo bad/good debate unless multiple offs that are conditional. PICs are cool. Disads are always a good strat as well and even better if it is impacted as a net benefit to the cp. Make sure to generate offense and you must have impact calculus.
General: Clarity is important and debaters forget to slow down on long blocks of analytics (especially for T/theory) and pls try to follow the line by line as best you can.
Case: Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part to every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.
Policy Affs: if you have a traditional policy aff just slow down on the plan text pls and have some sort of impact calc in the 2AR. I think these are fine.
CP/DA: Go for it. Don't forget to ask the status and PICs are fine. Test the competition of the cp(s) and make impact turns/defense. Explain why the perm(s) won't solve.
K Affs: I'm all for it. There are couple things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your fw of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear is buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote neg on presumption.
Theory: Go for it I guess. I'm more persuaded more by competing interps than reasonability.
Kritiks: Yes. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism. You should have specific links to affirmatives because without it you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact. The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explain the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation for if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually wining an impact framing claim.
Framework: Sure. I like fw debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more to competing interps than reasonability and believe that the neg should make sure to fully flesh out the link and internal link to your impact and actually make offensive arguments against fairness/education voters. Make strategic TVAs. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff team are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. Aff teams this means: 1) You need a counter interp or counter model of debate and what debate looks like under this model, and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. 2) The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. 3) Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.
Miscellaneous for both CX/LD:
- I don’t count flashing as prep time unless you're taking too long.
- Always be ready even if I am not present in the round yet.
- Tech > truth. the more you're proficient in the debate, the better your speaks will be.
- Respect your opponent's pronouns.
- Everything must be together in one speech doc before you stop prep to flash.
- Time yourselves.
- Flex prep is cool if your opponent is cool with it.
- Higher speaks will be rewarded with strategic cross-ex.
- Disclosure is good.
Here is a list of some people (in addition to Elijah) who are some of my favorite judges and/or have influenced the way I view debate:
Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley
Don't be rude and don't make arguments that are bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc. because I will dock your speaks.
email me email@example.com if you have any questions
Jai Sehgal Paradigm
I will listen to anything and vote on the flow. Not great with phil, tricks, or pomo kritiks.
Krithika Shamanna Paradigm
Shane Stafford Paradigm
The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.
Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:
--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.
--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.
--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.
--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.
--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.
--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.
--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.
--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.
--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.
--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.
--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.
--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.
--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.
--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.
Delivery and Decorum
--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.
--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.
--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.
Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.
Andy Stubbs Paradigm
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.
-Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though.
-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal
-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you
-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.
***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.
*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed
Sam Timinsky Paradigm
Specifics for Parli:
I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.
ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in the paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t’ be allowed in the round.
Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments on the link level if there is clear skew in one direction or another.
Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.
Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.
Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, why should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of story-telling to win the round.
If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.
My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.
I flow POI answers.
Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.
BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.
I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.
I don’t like PICS in general, but I will vote for them if you put some theory on it. Delay CP are evil, but I will vote for them.
The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded. I don’t think you have to have a DA. You can win the debate with a straight up “my solvency is better” argument.
Uniqueness does actually matter. No, Trump has not rendered all war or diplomacy impacts moot. Simplicity is your friend. Sign post what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.
I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.
Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.
Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.
Alternatives need to be real. You don’t need to have an alternative. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.
I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.
There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cutural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to transform the K into a new tool of exclusion. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which is violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2019 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates health norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.
I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.
Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.
I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense probably isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.
Specifics for Public Forum:
Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.
Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.
I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.
Thresholds for voting on solvency:
PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.
I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.
There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.
Specifics for Circuit Policy:
Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.
Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.
For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.
Specifics for Lay Policy:
I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.
As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.
Gurjinder Toor Paradigm
Experience wise I have been judging for several years.
My judging style is that of tabula rasa judge. I vote purely off what is presented to me within the round. I expect coherent arguments that are explained well. I also tend to look at the big picture in round.
-Speed: I prefer clarity over speed. If I can't understand you or you aren't clear in any way I will not tell you "clear", it is up to you as the debater to be clear to begin with. If you ultimately decide to spread then slow down on taglines.
-Arguments: You can run anything you want in round however it needs to make sense and link back to the resolution. Additionally, don't assume that I know the authors of your case and what their literature or work says, you need to be able to explain your arguments well.
*I hate frivolous theory, if there is legitimate abuse within the round then prove/show it to me.
I would prefer the first half of the round be line-by-line as much as possible and the second half of the round can be either line-by-line or big picture. Appropriate sign-posting is expected throughout the round. Considering the nature of PF debate I don't expect any spreading within the round and for debaters to stay true to this although a fast speaking pace is 100% acceptable. Providing strong voters at the end is not necessary however can be helpful for weighing impacts.
Maggie Zollo Paradigm
I currently coach LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.
As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.
I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me, it bums me out. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.
You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. You can read as fast as you want, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything, have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.
Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org, I would love to be added to the email chain.