New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2019 — Bronx, New York, NY/US

Wasi Ahmed Paradigm

My personal debate experience is around BP and APDA formats of debate. I have judged and debated BP for 3 years and have done so in APDA for 1 year. I have been instructing PF for 1 years having judged in multiple ADL tournaments

Jenna Alden Paradigm

8 rounds

New to debate.

I have been taught how to flow, and can do so competently, but I am not a flow judge.

If you want me to consider something in my decision, say it in final focus.

If I don't understand an argument you're making by the end of the round, I won't consider it when making my decision. I'm not stupid though, so don't worry too much.

Be respectful to each other!

Krista Annenberg Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent judge. Assume I know nothing. Please be clear and slow down a little. Thank you.

Isaac Appel Paradigm

Flow.

My real name is Corpus Christie, call me by my real name for a .1 speaker point bump.

James Balsan Paradigm

I have spent the last 30 years in the finance industry (Econ BS and MBA in International Finance) working on diverse projects ranging from carbon credit trading and college 529 plan administration to venture capital investments and merger and acquisition execution. I typically read up on the Resolved so lay the groundwork but quickly progress to you contentions.

This is my third year judging PF and I ask for a few simple things to help me in flowing the debate and rewarding your efforts:

1) Clearly highlight your contentions.

2) Define any acronyms / abbreviations the first time you use them.

3) You can speak quickly but please speak clearly.

4) Sign-posting is greatly appreciated to help me flow.

5) Off time road mapping also helps me follow your argument.

I will not disclose decisions but will provide constructive feedback in my RFD on your contentions and each speaker's contribution to the team.

Colin Berry Paradigm

Former debater.

Yuanfan Branson Paradigm

PF:

1/ No position is taken until the decision time.

2/ I'm a parent judge. Assume I'm not familiar with your topic. Convince me and make an impact.

3/ Will take point(s) off if you drop an argument or fail to extend an argument.

Christian Brown Paradigm

Offensive arguments you want me to evaluate gotta be in summary and ff

Gunna, Young Nudy and Money Man lyrics incorporated into a speech will result in a handsome inflation of your speaker points.

Lily Cai Paradigm


Lily Cai
Edgemont 2019

Conflicts
Edgemont High School

Major Influences

Matt Malia

Brian Manuel
Michael Antonucci

General

I see debate as an educational game. You can do whatever you want to as long as you don’t/aren’t
- Offensive
- Exceed speech time
- Misrepresent/clip cards

To me, being a judge is simply being a listener of your arguments.

Anything can be debated, there is no "moral bottom line" so to speak, where certain arguments cannot be made (death good, cap good, racism good-but I might give you really weird looks and your speaks might be seriously impacted). If you win the argument you win, I won't intervene and drop you on some non-existent moral bottom line.

I don’t necessarily abide by truth > tech or tech > truth. I follow the flow, but truth makes the flow more compelling.

I think argument flexibility is good and important. At least attempt to be ideologically flexible, as in be accepting of other arguments, if you don’t have the technical abilities to be argumentatively flexible.

An ideal debate involves good communication, creativity, and clash. I think the role of ballot is who did the best debating, the rest are self- serving and arbitrary.

The aff should at least have something to do with the topic and defend some form of departure from status quo. There should be an advocacy that the aff can be held to and the advocacy should be supported by academically sound evidences. (If you read 10 random cards about things like dark matter cards and call that a 1AC I won't like it very much) I also want to have a topical aff, if you do read an advocacy I am very lenient with frame work.

TKOs are in play, quoting Brian Manuel's judge philosophy:

"T.K.O (Technical Knockout) basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?"

I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates. If they are reading a plan I will have a high threshold for T arguments.

Biases
- Cross ex wins debates. It’s also the only time I know for sure you aren’t reading blocks.
- I don’t like theory debates, but theory arguments can be strategic.
- 2 conditional advocacies is totally fine, 3 requires the neg to do some work justifying it.
- Overviews are useful but only do so if arguments cannot be answered on the flow.

K Affs vs Framework
I am not as much a fw but if it is planless then I will be more than happy to vote for it.
of well-run framework arguments.

I think K/performance affs are definitely valuable but can sometimes get a little ridiculous.

Affs should defend some sort of an advocacy that they can be held to, unless they have a good reason as to why they shouldn't be held to an advocacy. If you read two poems and talk about yourself and say "vote me" that won't go well.

Impact out well and really explain.

T
Again,
I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates.
I am more lenient with the AFF if they are topical and you just read it so you an exclude them. But feel free to run it and I will evaluate it.

DA/Case Debate
- Impact framing determines most of these debates.
- I will vote on zero risk of case/DA/whatever if framed as such.

This is pretty bread and butter, nothing much else to be said about here.

CP
I'm fine with it but please make it clear to me what exactly the counterplan does and how it differs from the aff.
PICs are totally fine, aff winning theory arguments generally at most means rejecting the argument instead of rejecting the team.
Competition is the important
Also, you should have a Net Benefit or I will be more than happy to vote on perm

K
I am more a K debater

 

- Link magnitude is super important - if you only go for a Crenshaw silence link and don't explain how that specifically leads to your Wildersonian ontological impacts, I won't give you that impact.
- Sometimes you don't need to win an alternative.
- I am fine with them but some really high theory needs a lot of work and explanation then just: they are something and we win
-Specific links matter to me, don't just do generic links and stuff. If that's the case then I won't just give it to you

Jodi Caplan Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent of a LD debater and am familiar with the complaints about parent judges. I will try my best to vote off of the flow, so please indicate where I should flow all of your arguments and what they are in response to. I will drop you if you say anything offensive or derogatory. I will try to average speaks of 27.5-28. Good luck!

Nilesh Chander Paradigm

Short version:

Debated for four years at American Heritage, had relative success on the circuit. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long version:

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me to or else I'll probably try to find some offense on the flow

- I will default neg on presumption, but if you're affirming and speaking first you can make the argument that presumption flows aff

- If you're speaking 2nd and affirming, you cannot win on presumption

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Please signpost (i.e. say the card name) when extending cards, I might miss something or consider it to just be analysis if you don't do this.

- You can extend stuff very quickly with little explanation if it is clearly conceded

Weighing:

- If your weighing isn’t comparative then it probably won’t help you.

- If you don't win your argument then you can't access any weighing on it. Sometimes I believe it is strategic to spend more time in final focus making sure you are winning your argument and disproving your opponent's argument than doing simple weighing like magnitude, I can tell which impact is bigger if it really comes down to that.

- I'm not a fan of new weighing in second final focus, I'll still evaluate it but not too heavily.

Evidence:

- I'll always call for a card if it is contested and you tell me to

- Even if it not contested, I rarely will call for evidence that seems sketchy or is key to my decision

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I won't accept speech docs so if I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I'm pretty inexperienced with this stuff, but I'll try my best to evaluate it.

- Don't run identity-based argumentation without a personal connection. For example, I'll want to drop you if read an Orientalism K when you aren't Asian.

- Probably won't vote on disclosure, paraphrasing, or date theory.

Fun stuff:

- I think speaks are arbitrary and debate is always better when it’s fun. Ask me to provide a really random question before the round begins and if either partner can answer correctly I’ll give a 30.

- TKO rule is in play unless you’re debating novices.

- Guaranteed W30 if you can beat me in a game of flappy golf 2.

Other things:

- Unique arguments are cool if they are explained well

- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm

- Reading cards > paraphrasing

- Don't shake my hand and don't call me judge

- Please preflow before the round

Carmen Cheung Paradigm

8 rounds

I always find more kritikal debates that tackle larger social issues and systematic forms of oppression more interesting.

Ed Chiang Paradigm

8 rounds

My name is Ed Chiang. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I am an investment banker focused on equity capital raising across a variety of industries. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

Dean Cho Paradigm

8 rounds

Typical parent judge, keep it slow and civil.

Sehan Choi Paradigm

Debated PF for four years for Dalton. A few things I would like to see in round:

1. Weigh. Almost every judge puts this on their paradigm for a reason. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I'll have to evaluate the round using my own mechanism and you may not like it. Also, if the other team also does weighing, don't just bring up your weighing - explain why I should prefer your weighing mechanism over theirs.

2. Signpost well. It'll make it easier for me to follow your arguments.

3. Create a narrative. Don't just give me 5 different cards and say that's why we win the round. Work the cards into a cohesive narrative or argument that will persuade me.

4. Logical responses. Not every response needs to be a card dump. Those who can give me well warranted responses with evidence to go along with it that make sense to me will fare well.

5. Be careful of running theories or k's on me. My understanding of them is limited.

6. I DO NOT believe tech > truth. What this means is don't run any arguments that you know make absolutely zero sense in reality in front of me, even if you have some obscure source claiming it so. I like creative link chains but there is a limit.

Debate was by far my favorite activity in high school, and sometimes a bad or good judge could really define the round experience for me. If there's any questions you have or anything you would like me to know to help me be the best judge for you just let me know before the round. Please also be respectful to your opponents both in and out of round. Above all, have fun!!!! This is a high school activity; sometimes we forget that(I know I did).

Evan Chyriwski Paradigm

Former participant in Speech and Debate

Part of what I look for is clear delivery. It matters to me that I can understand what you are presenting. If cases are presented frantically and incoherently, it is difficult for me to appreciate the amount of work you put in to your research.

I respond well to when teams actively engage with the arguments presented to them and are able to adjust their cases based on the other side's examinations. Crossfires are meant to be dialogues, rather than platforms for one side or the other to restate their speeches. Being able to have a strong presence not only in prepared speeches but in cross demonstrates true skill in this activity.

Extremely disinterested in spreading, unsubstantiated evidence, and unnecessary and distracting rhetoric. Debate rounds do operate with a winner/loser, but I'm less interested solely in the drive to simply "win". Rounds should be balanced with presenting the most effective case, as well as a willingness to engage with the resolution at large.

Be respectful, and have fun.

Danny Cigale Paradigm

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Steve Clemmons Paradigm

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3.Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don' t think that because I have revealed the win, that your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, same thing, it will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph of two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Jordan Cohen Paradigm

General:

I did S&D for 4 years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit for Congress in my junior and senior years. I am the three time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016-2018. I am now a sophomore at Fordham in New York majoring in Philosophy. I am also a coach at BCDC. If you bring me a drink (I prefer diet coke or coke zero and will refuse any regular full-sugar pop — you can also bring me an electric berry rebel from dutch) it will increase your speaks by 1 point, because those are relative anyway.

PF:

I'll start out by saying my partner and I made a decision not to compete in PF on the national circuit. I don't like the way the national circuit has gone for PF. In particular, my biggest pet peeves are as follows:

-being rude, sexist, or condescending

-Saying and authors last name and a year in a scientific citation style rather than saying the name and organization in case (ex. Say "Tim Worstall of Forbes Magazine [in 2008]" instead of "Worstall 08" ) Feel free to shorten it up in summary/ff for time though. If you insist on using Worstall 08 for all speeches make aure to slow your speed down to take a pause to say the citation in case so I can make sure to get it right for my flow.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an EXTENSION. Extensions should have some new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say

-The extending thing is part of a larger issue I have with jargon in the debate community. I love jargon, it makes things more efficient. But don't misuse jargon and don't say jargon for the point of saying jargon. (Example of misuse: Frontline: A frontline is a preempt in your constructive, a "spike", not responses to responses in summary/2nd rebuttal -- If you use the summary definition I'll understand what you mean. It won't hurt you [I use the term myself just because it is a useful norm], I'll just judge you and all the camps teaching this definition in my head)

That's all for the pet peeve section, onto some miscellaneous stuff:

-I will let you go as fast as you want. If you want me to keep flowing, listen when I say "clear" for going too fast or without enough enunciation.

-I prefer drop the card/arg/contention over drop debater. I will only drop the debater if it is ran IN the round and is egregious for an evidence violation.

-I will call cards if I want to after the round, but if you want me to look at a specific card tell me to call it in a speech.

-I won't flow cross, in fact I will most likely not even listen to what you are doing (only for speaks consideration), bring anything important up in a speech.

-If you are looking at cards from your opponent I prefer offtime.

-I want a cut for what u read and for you to have available a full pdf for called cards.

-every argument has to pass a believablility threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech)

-I will give a full oral RFD and critique at the end of the round. Expect very little on the official ballot except a small paragraph at the most explaining the RFD.

-I expect everyone to cross-time, I don't like keeping the clock on my phone as a judge.

-Don't run anything abusive or illegal by PF standards.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. I most likely have the round decided after summaries. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your impact calculus should already be extended through summary. I am still paying attention and FF can still make or break a round. Most importantly with this, first summary speaker needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line.

-I will truth>tech in PF, but only on occasion. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow. I'm not Tabula Rasa.

-If you plan on spreading and/or running anything progressive go for it. Just add me to the chain (ask for email before round).

This is by no means exhaustive, feel free to ask me questions before the round, just don't ask "Do you have a paradigm", because I will point you here.

LD:

In the round keep in mind that I have a PF background. I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF mind.

I usually use only two flows (Aff/Neg), if you want me to get out another flow for something progressive let me know in an offtime roadmap.

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

See the PF miscellaneous section for my preferences on rate, calling cards, and cross-ex. (You should also read my pet peeve section as well, disregarding the citation style ("Worstall 08" is fine for LD).

I am neutral towards flex prep, you and your opponent must agree on it before the round if it is to be used.

If you are running something progressive at speed add me to the chain (ask for email before round).

If you are running something super LD-y expect to have to explain it to me. e.g. tricks

Joshua Cohen Paradigm

SHORT VERSION:

I have been judging PF since 2011.

Please do not speak quickly - I will not be able to follow you.

I place a premium on well-supported, "real-world" links, which are to me a prerequisite to your impact, no matter how large.

LONGER VERSION:

I am a judge from Newton South HS, just outside of Boston, MA. I have been judging PF since 2010. I debated in high school in the early 80s. But don’t let that fool you.

FLOWING – I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. As you go faster, however, my comprehension drops. In addition to speed, I have trouble with the following: (1) Evidence tags: Because I am unable to catch most evidence tags, I probably won’t know what you are talking about when you remind me that “Smith in 17” told me something important in your partner’s last speech – unless Smith is a big deal in the round and you have talked a lot about that evidence. (2) Short argument tags, especially in the two-minute speeches, in which debaters often introduce their own argumentation structure. If you say something like, “On economic growth, remember…”, I will end up spending 5-10 seconds trying to figure out what “economic growth” argument you are referring to (and perhaps even what side of the resolution you are on). As a result, I may miss a few of your responses. It’s more helpful if you build a bit of the link chain into your tag. For example – “Our opponents say more H-1b visas boost jobs and hence economic growth, but remember…”

IMPACTS AND LINKS – I find that which side wins my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. If I don’t find your link chain compelling, I will have a hard time voting for you, even if there’s something very big at the end of that chain. Argumentation that contributes to link chain credibility includes: (1) Inferences based on rigorous analysis of empirical data – i.e., a well-designed statistical analysis. If you can explain why the data in the analysis apply to (i.e., can be generalized to) the scenario being debated in the round, and why the statistical methods mitigate the risk of invalid inferences, I will find you to be compelling. (2) Consistency with history / the world we live in – For a lot of arguments, there are no rigorously conducted statistical analyses. For example, for few statistical studies look at how policies may influence public opinion, politicians, the policies of other countries, and so forth. But if you can identify pertinent historical precedents and argue that they inform the scenario being debated in the round, I will again find you to be compelling.

LESS COMPELLING ARGUMENTS – (1) Just because Professor Smith says something is true won’t necessarily convince me unless I understand *the basis* for Professor Smith’s beliefs. Yes, I’m looking for a warrant. But hopefully, you have more than your *own* explanation for Professor Smith’s conclusion. It’s best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. (2) Pasting together links from different sources often produces less compelling arguments. For example, Source A tells us that certain policies are politically divisive; Source B says that political division leads to federal gridlock; and Source C says that gridlock delays funding for the military and undermines national security, which, naturally, causes nuclear war. A problem with this sort of link chain in my mind is that the different sources use similar phrases to describe various types of events, but they aren’t really talking about the same things. For example, is the “divisiveness” described in Source A really equivalent to the “political division” described in Source B? And is the political division described in Source B emblematic of what has caused gridlock, as documented in Source C? If your opponent fleshes out these limitations, and if they have an alternative, more plausible description of how the real world works, that could be a problem for your position.

BOTTOM LINE – Fast argumentation challenges my ability to follow you. Stretched link chains challenge my tendency to believe you. You are best off presenting an intuitive narrative (i.e., a story that is consistent with how the “real world” works) and using that narrative as your foundation for establishing why your position is more credible than your opponent’s.

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Paradigm

8 rounds

FOR BRONX: I’m on crutches rn but I promise I’m hopping to round as quickly as possible

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable in round.

  1. I grant speaks based on the quality/explanation of your argumentation, not off of your presenting style. The only world in which your style impacts your speaks is if you are rude, condescending, or offensive, in which case I will drop you / give you a low point win depending on what the behavior is.
  2. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm). Debate the way that makes you feel happiest and most confident in your analytic skills!
  3. ~Tech over truth~ but if you don’t read a warrant, I will be very unhappy and will be less inclined to vote for this over an argument that goes unwarranted but is carded

  4. At a minimum, you have to frontline offense in second rebuttal
  5. Extend arguments and not just frontlines
  6. Defense is sticky
  7. I grant the weakest fiat
  8. Weigh + metaweigh. Weighing is not just dropping jargon, nor is it simply describing your own argument! Please please be comparative

  9. If you do read theory then please make sure your theory is accessible to your opponents (especially when it does not concern something that genuinely excludes individuals from debate, and is rather about a norm which would increase the quality of debate). Paragraph theory is fine. Please make sure you warrant/implicate these (as with all) arguments!

  10. If you extend an indict/think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but in all other instances I will not intervene about evidence

  11. I presume first speaking unless given warranted reasons otherwise
  12. In all honesty I probably have a higher bar for political disads

  13. If you take too long to set up your tabletote, please don't set it up at all :(


Have fun! Feel free to ask me about any of this.

Megan Cui Paradigm

i'm a former PFer in the great state of O-HI-O (currently a freshman in college) and never really did nat circuit debate at all, so consider me flay-lay judge.

i don't know what the topic of this month even is, so please don't use jargon concerning the topic.

please don't spread. lol

debate is about education. if you lie about evidence or make up stuff during the round, it's not an auto drop but pretty dang close!

don't be overly aggressive. pls don't yell at me or your opponents. it hurts my head!!

extend warrants and cards. i probably won't know what card ur talking about if u don't extend the warrant/analytics with it.

no new arguments in second half speeches!!!!!!

second rebuttal should frontline.

winning the framework does not win you the round.

try to speak well! don't read straight off ur laptop :/

HAVE FUN WHILE DEBATING! when i was in high school, debating was crazy stressful too, but, esp if you're a senior, make the most of the last few times you'll be able to debate with your team again. i miss it! once you're literally out of high school, no one cares about debate anymore. the only thing people remember is your character!! so have fun :))))))

Nestor Davidson Paradigm

I am a parent lay judge, so please adjust accordingly. I will take notes but I don't flow.

Brenden Dimmig Paradigm

I've rewritten my paradigm. The last time I made large edits was when I made it, which was in 2013 after I graduated high school. I've tried to answer as many questions on arguments as possible. Instead of telling you what I know about arguments, I think telling you how I evaluate them in rounds is better (I know, duh). Things that have three stars (e.g. ***) are things that have not changed since the last time I made my paradigm.

***Judging/Coaching history: A lot of times individuals will post their philosophies without giving an indication as to their debate background. I believe giving a background allows the debaters to gain a better understanding of who the judge actually is. So, the following is my background in terms of debate experience.

(2019-Present): I will be the assistant director of forensics who coaches PF at the Delbarton School, and policy coach at Princeton High School.

(2017-2019, summer) I was a parli graduate coach at UNT and policy coach at Melissa H.S.

(2015-2017, summer) I helped coach PFD teams and some LD & policy squads at Southlake Carrol H.S..

(2014-2016, summer) I helped coach policy teams at Prosper H.S.

(2014-2015, summer) I was the assistant debate coach for Crandall H.S.

(2013-2014ish, summer) I debated for the University of North Texas for one year(ish).

(2009-2013, summer) Lampasas High School: Policy Debate.

Reasons to strike me

1-I won't play along with your ridiculous 3NR's. If you're going to question me, spin my RFD, and attempt to generate a explicit concession to why I voted the wrong way, I probably will say what I did round 1 at nationals "1.) I'm done here 2.) your coach should be ashamed of the way that you are conducting this RFD." Note: I don't care if you question me about my RFD, but these ridiculously rude and condescending ways of conducting an RFD are not something I care to waste my time with. If I wanted to waste time, I would have spent my day at home.

2-if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.

3-If I have coached you before in any capacity (you know who you are).

Policy Debate Paradigm

Synthesis: Offense/Defense.

Can I still win the debate if I only have defensive issues, or if I go for the stock issues? Probably not. There's only been one time I voted on defense in my judging days.

What is your speaker point scale? Look, I hardly every give below a 28.5. I've been called the speaker point inflationary man by some. This, however, does adjust based off of the tournament that I am at. If I am at a TFA local, my average is probably a 28.5 If I am at a national tournament like Texas, Grapvine, or Houston, my average will be between a 28-28.3.

How do I increase my range on the scale? Evidence comparison is important to me. Being strategic is something that will be highly looked up (e.g. going for the dropped link turn on the disad when you're losing everything else). Employing or operationalizing case specific or nuanced stratagies.

What kind of aff do you prefer? Honestly, I don't care. However, if I was "pinned" to a preference, I would say soft left affirmatives. However, I grew up going for hard right affs, and predominately coached that the first 2-3 years I was out of high school. I've voted for Jesuit, Churchill, Greenhill, and other great team on numerous occasions who have employed both far right and soft left affs. As I go into my 7th year coaching, 11th year in debate, I have deviated from this. I have been more versed in coaching soft left positions the past 3 years. Due to graduate school and judging more national tournaments, I'm way more comfortable seeing aff's without a plan text. I had the pleasure of judging teams like Wylie and Coppel DR who read aff's without a plan.

What kinds of kritikal arguments are you familiar with? Gender and Heidegger (that has been a hot minute, though).

Topicality

Competing Interpretations or Reasonability? Don't have a preference. This may be contingent on the debate.

What do teams not do that you think is important? I think on the ground standard, you need to warrant how you are loosing the ground argument you indict that you are losing. Whenever you are impacting your limits disads, please contextualize how a limit on a certain phrase within the resolution (e.g. Foreign Military Sales) is important. I think that will gain you a lot of traction in front of me.

What about the impact level? Right, I think that if you are making fairness outweighs education, fairness is an internal link to education, or the reverse, then that may help generate a ballot for you depending on the T argument.

Theory

Competing interps or reasonability? Idk it depends on the theory argument.

What are teams doing poorly? Making blanket statement interpretations to why something is bad. For example, just saying "conditionality is bad" is probably not a good interpretation.

Theoretical Predispositions? I think that it is easy to persuade me why, for instance, if there is just one conditional advocacy, why conditionality is good. I think that it is easy to persuade me why delay counterplans are dumb. I think that it is easy to persuade me why 50 state fiat is a good thing. I think that it is easy to persuade me why negative fiat is a good thing.

Does theory come before topicality? Maybe. It depends on the debate.

When is the last time that you voted on theory? When a novice team dropped conditionality back in 2015.

Framework

Is framework argumentatively racist? Maybe. It depends on the arguments within the debate.

Have you voted on framework before? Yes.

Have you NOT voted on framework? Yes.

What do you think about the impact level? I think that it is easy to turn fairness and education. I think that here, moreso than T, that there are stronger arguments about why you internal link better into fairness or education and why that outweighs the other.

Disads

Can I win the disad if I do not have case? Maybe. You need some strong arguments to why either the disad solves the aff (e.g. immigration politics on the 2013 topic or on the 2018 topic), or make some persuasive disad turns and outweighs the aff arguments.

If I win the disad but lose T, do I win the debate? No.

What part of the disad is the most important to you? I think that if you are losing the uniqueness question, I don't think, unless it is a linear disad, that you will get very far. If you're losing the link youre probably going to lose the disad. In other words, I don't know if there is a predisposition that I have, here.

If I lose the disad/net benefit, can I still win the counterplan? Maybe. It would have to depend on some other type of net benefit, like an internal net benefit.

What does it take to win a straight turn? A non-unique argument and link turn. I would be persuaded in the negative's direction if you do not have a non-unique argument.

Counterplan

Is conditionality good? Yes. See above.

Are there certain counterplans that are "bad"? No. I do however think that delay is dumb. I have, however, voted for it.

Are consult counterplans good? Yes. They depend on the topic, but I especially think on the FMS topic that they are viable.

Advantage counterplans? PIC's? Agent Counterplans? Multiplank counterplans? All fine. I wrote a lot of PIC's on the immigration topic for Melissa GS. Agent counterplans are also good depending on the topic (e.g. immigration, transportation, and so on) so that you can generate the states counterplan or whatever. I think employing PIC's are persuasive. If you even have internal net benefits with or without a disad, I think that it fine, too.

***Pemutations: Just saying "perm do both" doesn't do a whole lot for my ballot. What do those three words mean? What are you perming? What is it like in the world of the permutation? Just saying "perm do both" doesn't do a whole lot for my ballot. What do those three words mean? What are you perming? What is it like in the world of the permutation? Please explain, in other words, how the permutation operates and how it either shields the disad link or resolves it.

Performance & Kritiks

Have you voted on this before? Yes.

Method vs. method debates? That's probably a good way to engage the criticism beyond framework and case.

What's the most under developed part of this argument within debates that you see, in your opinion? The method debate. Like my friend Chris O'Brien, I think that I start at the level of the alternative and go up from there. If there is an insufficient explanation to the alternative or method, I do not think that you will be in a very good position to win if they are largely contesting the alt. Reject alts are fine. Having a more tangible alt, however, will get you farther.

Does the aff get to weigh it against other arguments? Maybe. Depends on the arguments presented.

***Case debate: 1st this debate is very underutilized. 2nd, impact turns are functionally underutilized. I REALLY love for these debates to happen. I'm game for voting solely on you impact turning the aff, as long as it is impacted out. 3rd, comparative analysis on evidence will get you super far. If you need me to call for evidence, I sure will. If I feel like I need to reciprocally, I will. 4th, if you're going for a disadvantage you need to probably win some type of defense to the aff. 5th spin and the actual text of the evidence are two different things. Please remember that, especially if I am going to call for the evidence at the end of the round.

***Clipping cards: This is defined as "intentionally skipping over the already underlined and or boded text you are reading from your card". If you DO NOT say "cut the card here" and just magically assume you read the whole card, I will vote you down and give you the lowest possible speaker points. This is cheating. You are making me assume you read the whole card. This is ESPECIALLY problematic when I call for the evidence, and I evaluate all of it, but you only read certain warrants. Preface: if none of your card(s) is highlighted/bolded/underlined and I call for it I'm voting in the opposite direction. I've stared indicating on a my flow where you have marked the card at, if you did. With that, if you GIVE ME A DOC WHERE THE CARD IS NOT PROPERLY MARKED, I WILL GIVE IT BACK. THAT IS ON YOU. I'm not going to vote you down for "clipping cards per say", I'm just going to reject that piece of evidence due to you failing to do your job. If that results in you loosing the debate, well, mark the cards properly. It becomes very simple and requires just a couple of seconds of time. "Don't be a Lance Armstrong" [Petit, L. (2013). Lecture, not named, University of North Texas. No stable URL.].

***Email Chain:As this is my 6th year judging, I'd like an email chain. If you ask, I'll say yes. I usually have a computer on myself at all times, if not two: there's no reason for me to say no unless I'm being irresponsible and not bringing my computer(s) to tournaments. Other than that, I may occasionally ask for a email chain if I feel like I want to stop teams from clipping cards. This usually happens latter on in the tournament, especially if at the beginning I am seeing teams clip cards.

*LD*

Framework: if you force me to vote in a framework debate, so be it. I think that for you to win this debate you need to be winning one of, or in terms of an even if claim, two arguments. 1-Why you're winning more offense in the debate by just looking at your framework. If going through your framework is just a better option, that's fine. I need be figuring our why your framework outweighs in some way your opponents framework. This requires you to filter through your sense of framework as a means of comparative analysis to your opponents framework. 2-Internal link turning your opponents framework. This requires analysis on gauging why your standard/criterion is the option by which better resolves or gets to your opponents value in a better way.

I think if someone reads a typically or traditional case (i.e. framework and contentions, I don't necessarily think that framework is the best argument to read against the aff). If someone is read a performance or K aff, then for sure.

Value/Criterion (general): I don't have a predisposition as to what values are "pertinent" or "tangental" to the resolution, or think that some are worse or better over others. That reciprocally applies to the standard/criterion debate.

Observations: Not a lot to say here besides cool.

Theory: Cool, see above in the policy section. In LD specifically, I find that too many times people are putting in these large theory shells in the 1AC/1NC as a means to pre-empt some type offense that might be coming later. I think there needs to be an explanation for how this functions really.

Disads/Counterplans/Kritiks: Cool, see above in the policy section for details. They probably need to be reading a plan for you to generate a disad link or your disad needs to be in tangent with the aff's method.

Contention Level: I frame these, inside of my mind, as analogous to advantages in policy debate. This is where I would like the debate to come down to. Granted, I understand that this cannot happen without a discussion of the framework debate. So, if you can tie this into the framework debate that would be awesome. If not, that's fair. If it's just an all out contention level debate, well, I can dig it.

Meta-Level Debate:** I feel as if this is where my greatest weakness lies in terms of judging this particular forum of debate. I find that too many individual's are going for these types of arguments and going so fast without a means to allow me a little "pen time" if you will to catch everything you heart wants me to catch (aaaahhhhhh, get it-pun----never mind). Also, I probably am not versed in the particular engaging strategy in which entails a deep meta-level analysis of the resolution in some way due it being, probably, pretty contextual to the resolution. Explanations here are key. If you go for this that's awesome, just allow me to have some pen time as well as some type of functional overview that really explains to me what you're indicating to myself.

Public Forum Paradigm

I think that in the last speeches it is to your benefit to collapse on the arguments that you go for. I think that if you want me to call for the evidence, I will. However, that does NOT mean that I am going to call for the entire PDF. That's ridiculous. I'll be looking at your evidence within the debate, although I understand that these types of disquisition do not happen as much as they do in policy or LD.

I'm pretty cognizant to how impacts "translate" or transfer from policy to PF. So, you need to win an impact, which in policy is an internal link (e.g. war, recession, ect.). I look at PF in an offense/defense framework/paradigm.

I award speaker points to efficient debates. I think that good PF debaters will sound well. Great PF debates will sound well and be efficient.

I also award speaker points and applaud teams for being able to operationalize dual strats. If you want to go for structural violence offense, please be my guest. If you want to go for a util based impact, then be my guest. Additionally, i do NOT care if you read your case and make competing arguments within the 2nd speech. If this frames the way that you flip the coin within the debate, okay. If this is a reason to strike me, okay.

Disclosure: Do I think the aff or neg needs to disclose? No. The limited time due to the activity makes it functionally and operationally different insofar as research is concerned when compared to policy and even LD. I also understand that the majority of the teams may not want to do it due to their school size. These arguments will get you far within the disclosure debate.

Phineas Donohue Paradigm

Mom what is the Netflix password

Joy Fan Paradigm

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=robey&search_last=

^that

Hello! Please remember to eat and stay hydrated! If anything below doesn't make sense, feel free to snatch my contact from FB and message me! *or ask me before round if it's a quick question*

Tl;dr: If you don't warrant, I'll find it abhorrent. If you don't weigh, things won't go your way. *I really tried to rhyme don't come at me*

On style:

PF isn't LD or CX. Take that to mean what you will.

Speed depends on your opponents. Upper limit is spreading. If you do speak fast, enunciate. I will yell "clear" twice before I give up and start crying.

No signpost, no flow.

If you are being cocky, arrogant, condescending, etc. I will make that my RFD.

If you want to wear your slippers in round instead of your heels, I will applaud you for standing up to the patriarchy.

If you decide to bring your team and coach in to post-round me aggressively, and in essence, bully me, I will promptly stand up and leave. I will also continue to give your team horrendous speaks if I judge y'all again until behavior improves. I'm really not in the mood.

On speeches:

Rebuttal: 2nd needs to strategically frontline. If you card dump, I will dump you.

Summary: Apparently this is 3 minutes now?! If you don't collapse and weigh I'll just be sad. You can extend unaddressed defense from 1st rebuttal to 1st final. 2nd speaking team must introduce weighing during summary at the latest if you want it to be evaluated.

Final: If it wasn't in the summary, it better not be in the final (unless you're addressing the weighing mech from 2nd summary). Mirror summary, but do what's strategic, but if you write my RFD for me verbatim that would be gReAtlY aPpRecIaTed!

On cross:

I use cross as entertainment. If you want me to evaluate it, it should be in a speech. If you think grand cross is a waste of time and energy and should instead be a dance-off between the first speakers, I'm down.

On ethics:

If I hear that you are regularly misconstruing a card you are collapsing on prior to the round, I will call for the card at the end, search it up myself *because we all know how inspect element works,* and if you are indeed misconstruing, I will not only drop you, but I will give you the minimum speaks I am allowed to give. I will also be sad.

If your opponents call you out for misconstruction, and y'all agree to drop the card, then I'll leave it at that.

If your opponents call you out for misconstruction, and y'all contest it, and it becomes a voting issue, refer back to the first blurb on me calling for cards and being sad.

On speaks:

I try to be a points fairy. If you don't get a 30, you will be told why after the round. Just kidding, apparently that creates a problem for tab. I'll give anywhere from 28.6-29 I guess.

Have fun, make friends, and cherish these memories!

Matthew Feng Paradigm

8 rounds

Hello, I have been a coach for a number of teams over the past five years and competed in PF for four years before that.

I'm a normal judge - I would greatly appreciate if you weighed, if you extended arguments in their entirety (e.g. links, impacts, and implications) in each speech, and if you did your debating in a constructive way (e.g. educational, not dismissive or exclusionary of your opponents). That means I think you should be frontlining (and extending) in the second rebuttal and engaging with those frontlines in the first summary. If you don't do this, depending on how the rest of the round goes, I may drop the argument (e.g. if your opponent is properly extending their offense in each speech and you are not extending yours, I would probably defer to their argument first). If you don't weigh (or if both of you weigh in some singular way, like one of you weighs on magnitude and the other on probability), I will have to weigh myself, which you may not agree with.

I think that I'm pretty good at keeping up with the flow, but I'm not great at speed - I'll clear you if I can't understand you. I have a reasonable appetite for progressive arguments - I'll listen to Ks/T/Theory, but I'm not fully confident I have a good grasp on how to handle these arguments, so you can read them at your own risk. I definitely think there is frivolous theory (arguments that are non-sensical or not actually about checking abuse) and necessary theory (arguments that actually check abuse) - I'll accept almost any response to the former and will evaluate fairly seriously the latter. I personally don't believe that case disclosure is good, but I guess I would evaluate disclosure theory if debated and won - but I think that a lot of times these debates will just be a back-and-forth where both sides just start repeating themselves, in which case I would have to intervene to resolve the issue.

If some evidence sounds too good to be true or is contested in the round, I'll try to call for it. In that case, if I feel it's misrepresented, depending on the severity of the infraction, I'll either drop the argument or the team.

Pam Frederick Paradigm

Hello debaters. I look forward to watching and judging your rounds. Rather than try to present a paradigm, I will just offer you some facts about myself and you can reach your own conclusions.

I am a parent of a debater who is now in 11th grade. I have been judging debate tournaments -- first in Parli then in PF -- for a full four seasons. I was never a debater myself; everything I know about debate I learned from watching you all. I now run the team at my son's high school, so I am judging at all the UDLNYC tourneys as well as about four National Circuit tournaments each year.

I am a professor of journalism at Hunter College, so I know well how to identify valid evidence, sound arguments and good writing. But this also means that I really value writing structure and organization; I want to be able to track -- or flow -- your arguments in each speech.

Ok, so I guess I do have some nit-picky preferences: I do not get anything from spreading (it just makes it harder for me to follow) and it bugs me when people give an off-time roadmap, especially since 99 percent of the time the debater does not follow it. If it is important for you to layout your plan (and I would argue it is), make it part of your speech. I also pay attention to the crossfires since I think it reveals a lot about the individual speakers more than the speeches do sometimes.

One thing for certain: I LOVE debate. Hats off to you for taking on all the work it requires.

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 I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

Paul Gaba Paradigm

    • I've been coaching in southeast Florida since 2000, and have had national qualifiers in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and World Schools Debate. Some have even advanced beyond prelims!


(1) Picture ... if you will ... your 93-year-old great-grandfather. In order for him to understand the words coming out of your mouth, you must speak clearly. Very clearly. I'm not 93, or your great-grandfather (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge I'm not - and if I am, why am I judging you? You're my great-grandchild! Conflict of interest!), but I weigh clarity highly. If I cannot understand you, and stop flowing the round (whether via old-school "putting the pen down" or new-school "no longer pounding away on my laptop keyboard"), you are probably losing the round. Badly.

(1a) My iPad tends to merge words together when I try to flow using electronic ballots. Which means I sometimes miss arguments while trying to fix the hot mess typos. Or when I look back on the round to review, there’s chunks missing. Clarity in your presentation will go a long way toward me remembering what you said and why it was important. “Speed kills” isn’t just about how you drive on the roadways. Speaking of which ...

(1b) Debate is an educational communications activity. It's about persuasion; competitors ought to hone and practice the skills that will be effective in the real world; I expect no less in a debate round. Spewing out random crap just because you think a 72nd argument will win you the round won't cut it. The ONLY spreading that matters is cream cheese on a toasted onion bagel. (Mmmmm, toasted onion bagel ... with cream cheese ... and lox ...)

But I digress.

(2) In Policy Debate, "End of the world" nuke war-type arguments don't sway me. (Actually, this holds true in all other debate events, too!) We've somehow managed to survive the Cold War, Krushchev's shoe-banging incident, and that immature Canadian singer who makes me want to puke (and whose name I refuse to print or say).

(2a) I rarely call for cards. Like, I’ve done it maybe twice in 15+ years? Don’t expect to be the third.

(3) I prefer substance over style.

(3a) I also prefer you treat you opponent and the judge (and, in a paired event, your partner) like they are human beings. DO NOT GO DONALD TRUMP IN A ROUND - YOU WILL LOSE POINTS, AND PROBABLY LOSE THE ROUND ... BADLY.

(4) In Lincoln Douglas Debate, I'm really old school - it's a philosophical debate, not a forum to jam statistics and facts down my throat. Notice that "OLD SCHOOL" has the initials "LD" embedded in the name. Live it; learn it; know it.

(5) I am not a "point fairy" (earning a 30 from me is damn next to impossible) but am not overly harsh ... unless you do something reallllllllly stupid or insulting, in which case, fear my wrath! Also, I will deduct an entire point if I don't believe you are flowing the majority of the time you should be OR if you pack-up your belongings and don't take notes/look at your flow during my RFD/critique. (BTW, I rarely disclose, but I will offer analysis of things that occurred during the round.)

(6) Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia rocks my dirty socks. So do Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (RIP, Tom!), Monty Python, the Detroit Red Wings, and Mountain Dew. Sadly, I'm not supposed to have Ben & Jerry's or Mountain Dew anymore (damn you, Type 2 diabetes!), but such is life. Then again, we've survived that previously-referenced Canadian singer ... so far ...

Arielle Gallegos Paradigm

8 rounds

(update for big Bronx elims)

just have fun

Ashok Ghosh Paradigm

I am a parent and lay judge who has been judging for 2 years.

When debating, I look for people who are able to stand by their arguments well. I don't care what the argument is, as long as you are able to back it up and defend it against your opponent's rebuttals.

P.J. Gormley Paradigm

I consider myself a traditional judge. I judge based on good argumentation, clash, composition, articulation, and poise. I prefer speed at a moderate rate and volume within a reasonable range.

William Greene Paradigm

8 rounds

This is my third year judging PF for my son's school. Most of the competitions I've judged at have been local tournaments, which might not be on par with what you see on the national circuit.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. Make sure everything you say is understandable to a reasonable person.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round.

When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Also, don't waste time dilly dallying between speeches--it adds up and gives me less time to write my ballot before the next round.

I vote off the flow.

Garrett Halsell Paradigm

Not Submitted

James Harrison Paradigm

I debated PF for four years in high school, primarily on the national circuit. Basically, I am your run-of-the-mill flow judge. This means:

⁃ Warrants are crucial for me to favorably evaluate an argument. If I don’t know why something is true, then at best, I will very begrudgingly vote on it (and the rest of the round had to have been really bad for this to happen). If one team has better warranting for their arguments with very little evidence, and another team has evidence for their argument with very little warrants, I will (despite my better judgment) pick the first one to vote on.

⁃ Any offense in summary must be in final focus for both first and second speaking teams. First summary does not need to extend defense, unless the second rebuttal frontlined first rebuttal (this is especially true now that summaries are 3 minutes). I don’t think the second speaker has to necessarily cover the entirety of the first rebuttal, but I think they do have to cover turns. I just think second summary is too late to respond to them.

⁃ Weigh. It is something every flow judge expects (even though very few teams will actually effectively do it). Most likely, both teams are going to have offense left in the round, so you need to articulate why your argument is worth voting for over your opponents. The one thing I will add is that teams need to do a better job interacting with each other’s weighing mechanisms (i.e meta weighing). For example, it’s great if you are winning on magnitude, but if your opponents are winning on probability, then which argument am I voting for? Effective weighing interacts with your opponents weighing, and if you do this it will go a very long way in getting my vote. If there is no weighing done I default to util.

⁃ Although, I personally never read frameworks that much in my debate rounds, as I judge, I actually really do appreciate them. A good weighing overview/framework on which arguments I should prefer makes the debate a lot easier for me to evaluate, and makes the debaters job easier of collapsing in the back half of the debate. If there is no framework/weighing overview and there is no weighing done in the round, I default to util.

⁃ I will call evidence if it is important to my decision or if was a hotly contested piece of evidence. If the evidence was miscut, then I will drop the card, and really lower your speaks.

That said, there are a few weird things about me:

⁃ Defense is sticky. If you extend an argument in both summary and final focus without front lining the responses put on it, then I won’t vote on it. This holds true even if your opponents don’t extend those responses in summary and final (although I will be really unhappy if you do this, and will be reflected in your speaker points).

⁃ *I don’t know if this will/has ever happened, but if there is absolutely no offense left in the round for me to vote on, I will default to the first speaking team. In theory, every debate should be won by the second speaking team, since they have the last opportunity to weigh/win arguments in the round. I think the way PF is formatted puts the first speaking team at a significant structural disadvantage, since the only way for them to win is if the second speaking team does not capitalize on their advantage. But again, it likely won’t come down to this in your round.

⁃ I won’t outright not consider certain arguments in the round, but if your running arguments that have ridiculous impacts, really tenuous links, or are just offensive, then my threshold for the quantity/quality of responses put on it goes down. And this is scalar. Basically the more ridiculous the argument is, the easier it is for your opponents to get away with what would otherwise be insufficient responses. On that note, I think probability is a really undervalued metric in debate. Although I consider myself tech over truth, it is really frustrating for me when I have to vote on low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments that I know are not grounded in reality. If you are winning a high probability, lower magnitude impact, I will feel much more comfortable voting for that instead.

⁃ I rarely ever debated against theory, Ks, etc., so just consider that if you plan on running these. I won’t automatically vote against progressive arguments, but I am not experienced enough with them to evaluate them the way you want me to.

⁃ If you are going for turns as a path to the ballot in the second half of the round, you need to treat it like an actual argument. This means you have to warrant the turn well, and effectively implicate its impact, like a contention. If these things are not done, then it becomes more likely that I just over look it and deem it a blippy extension, and don’t vote for it (although this is a case-by-case decision).

Miscellaneous:

⁃ Be civil in cross. In extreme instances of rudeness, I will give you lower speaks.

⁃ I am usually generous with speaks. Good speaking boosts your score, but being really strategic in the round will go an even longer way.

Email: jph2188@columbia.edu

Richard He Paradigm

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

Lenny Herrera Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

 

Brooks Howell Paradigm

Hello! I did debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School and competed nationally.

I like rounds where everybody has fun and is relaxed.

I think I'm decent at flowing but will not be able to keep up with policy level spreading.

No clean defense needs to be extended in first summary.

I won't evaluate new contentions framed as overviews in second rebuttal. That's a meanie tactic!

Be funny like Sri Chilikuri from Roosevelt. Don't be lame like Isaac Appel from Roosevelt.

I will always disclose unless the tournament threatens my life, my RFD might be kinda short but feel free to ask more questions/ask for advice. I'm happy to help!

Ask me about anything else, I'm super happy to answer questions.

Be nice and have fun!

Warmly,

Mr Howell

Joe Hu Paradigm

About Me

I'm a lay judge and the parent of a debater.

I generally can handle a good rate of speech but cannot follow you if you speak too fast.

General

I may or may not disclose right away.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself.

Signpost and road-map help.

Off-time road maps are fine but please keep them short.

I will follow your points and sub-points (as much as I can) and keep track of whether they are refuted, and the effectiveness of their rebuttals.

Bad/nasty behaviors and hateful comments will not be tolerated.

What I vote for:

• Ability to reason and convince

• Ability to articulate

• Clarity and consistency of speeches

• Soundness in logic

• Weighing in rebuttal

• Credibility/quality of sources/evidences

• Good extension and linking (of your arguments) from summary to final focus

• Team cohesion and manner

I'll try my best to judge fairly. Good luck and have fun.

Charlie Jackson Paradigm

I debated for Millard North High School for 4 years and competed on the circuit.

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads. I allow the first speaking team to extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. If you’re gonna read a super long overview or have a weird speech order please let me know before you start talking.

Summary and Final Focus:

With the three minute summary i have a much higher expectation for extensions do not extend everything quality over quantity always. "extend smith '18" is no longer acceptable for me, if the extensions are bad enough i wont do the work for you.

I think summary is the most important speeches in the round. In summary I expect the first speaker to strategically collapse on a few arguments rather than attempt to spread through the whole flow. I enjoy judging rounds where there are a lot of strategic decisions from both sides (collapsing on one warrant and weighing, kicking case and going for turns, conceding a delink to kick out of a turn). Also extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over counterwarrants. I expect final focus to do the same thing along with collapsing even further and doing more weighing.

Evidence:

PF evidence ethics are pretty terrible. My general consensus in terms of calling for cards is if there is an argument made within the round about a certain piece of evidence/a team tells me to call for something

Speaker Points

I think that speaks are skewed in most rounds, and will start at a 29 for speaks for everyone. points go up for good strategic decision on the flow. points go down for miscut cards, ghost/no extensions, and bad behavior in round.

Frank Ocean references = boost in speaks

Theory/ Progressive argumentation

I am very very open to theory and other progressive arguments ie Ks or DAs but the argument has to be warranted and implicated well.

Speed

this should not be a problem at all, however if you go too fast I will ask for a speech doc, and I expect you to give it to your opponents too.

I presume to the team speaking first, just because of the structural disadvantage.

Please ask before the round or email me (char.char.jackson21@gmail.com) if you have any questions. Be sure to have some fun.

i have a hella bad poker face also, so you will know how i feel about an argument, it is smart to make a strategic decision based on this.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

was the S in millard north SN

Anup Jassal Paradigm

8 rounds

I was first exposed to forensics as a Lincoln-Douglas debater at the Bronx High School of Science in 1989. In that category, I competed at many local NFL, CFL, Districts, States, Nationals, TOCs, as well as a variety of prestigious invitational and round-robin tournaments throughout the entire country. In addition, I have participated in HS Extemp, Original Oratory, Mock Trial, Model UN/Congress and C-X team debate at the college level. I also have experience judging L-D, C-X, and Public Forum styles.

At Bronx Science, I was trained to largely use the "tabula rasa" approach to judging. That is to say, the criteria that I will use to the determine which side has best resolved the topic will almost entirely be guided by the arguments and evidence that the debaters present. However, the debate does not exist in a vacuum. All of the forensics activities above were intended to be clearly understandable by the average intelligent HS student or a well-informed member of the citizenry included on a typical jury, for example. Common sense will be applied to keep rhetorical devices and tricks in proper perspective. Extraordinary platforms and premises will require stronger evidence and sound arguments in order to defend them. Weight will be given to the credibility and persuasiveness of the arguments made, and will also impact how individual points are awarded. The quality and sophistication of logical reasoning, effectiveness of communication and strength of rebuttal will also influence the relative distribution of these points. Speed reading incoherently or over-reliance on jargon lowers the quality of the debate, and thus will reflect unfavorably in terms of speaker points on my ballot, too. I do not give low-point wins.

I will use flow paper to follow the round. Oral critiques will not typically be given, as my submitted ballot itself will include any constructive feedback I can offer, as well my reasoning for the decision.

Most importantly, though, I want to wish you a good time at this tournament. The weekends spent debating in High School go by really fast, so enjoy them and have fun!

Anthony Jiang Paradigm

Plano West '19. I debated PF for 3 years.

General:

Tech > truth, but don't read anything ridiculous for the sake of reading something ridiculous.

Calling out an argument as unwarranted is a sufficient response if it truly is unwarranted.

These guidelines below are pretty broad, so please ask questions if there's anything specific you don't see mentioned.

Speed:

No spreading

Evidence:

I will call for evidence. I'd rather have the source (link or original pdf) than the cut card, but cut cards will suffice in a pinch. If you can't provide either, I won't evaluate it, but I also won't dock speaks unless it's getting ridiculous.

No disclosure theory

Misconstrue at your own risk. A small clip or powertag is forgivable; bullying is not.

Speaks:

27-30 unless you say something problematic

Framework:

I'll default to util unless you warrant otherwise

Extensions:

Defense sticks through first summary unless frontlined in second rebuttal

I think the test should be: "is this extension convincing?" A frontline alone is not a convincing extension. Link chain + frontlines + impact + internal warrants is.

Progressive:

Run at your own risk

LD, Policy, Worlds, whatever else:

Speak pretty. I don't know what I'm doing.

tl;dr

Keep it real and keep it fun.

Paul Jones Paradigm

Hello! I am a parent judge, this paradigm is being written by his son who does debate.

I am what you would call a lay judge: I want you to speak slowly and clearly, make it easy to understand and show common courtesy towards each other.

I will try to evaluate the round to the best of my ability, and if you feel I've judged wrong, please be understanding.

Have fun and I look forward to hearing your arguments!

Rose Joyce-Turner Paradigm

I have been coaching and judging debate rounds since 1987.

I expect each kind of debate to resemble its intended design.

I will flow the debate. I will stop flowing the debate when time is up. I will not listen to anything once the time has elapsed.

I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round; I want to be able to hear it the first time you articulate it clearly.

You should tell me “where I am voting.”

You should tell me “how I can vote for you there.”

You should tell me “why I am voting there and not somewhere else.”

This means I am not doing this for you; you weigh the round for me. I want to hear a clear narrative that has some resemblance of a clear framework, which deals with terms and concepts fairly.

In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense rather than doing weighing for you. (this means things that were dropped and clearly extended)

Akira Kawamura Paradigm

I am a chemistry professor at a public university in New York. I enjoy listening to PF debates and strive to judge fairly. During debates, I focus on evaluating the impacts of each contention in terms of scope, magnitude, and likelihood.

Please speak clearly. Please also be aware that I might not know specialized technical terms and abbreviations related to the topic. In your summary and final focus, please explain the reasons why I should vote for your team.

Speaker points evaluation criteria: (1) clarity (speech, logic), (2) persuasiveness (eloquence, body language), and (3) civility.

Brogiin Keeton Paradigm

8 rounds

I listen carefully, make your words matter.

Maryrose Kohan Paradigm

PF PARADIGM:

Please do not be annoying:  I am used to judging policy where debaters do not ask if everyone in the room is ready, but merely look around to see if everyone LOOKS ready.  If I am still typing or writing, I am not ready!  

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro".  Please do not use the term "brief off time road map."  Or ask if I time them!

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.  

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case.  In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round because you think they sound cute or persuasive.  If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes.  

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary.  All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.  

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.  

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!  

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.  

Asking to see your opponents' evidence is really annoying unless you are going to do something in terms of argumentation with what you are examining.  I hate short, blippy cards and read one right after another is actually really hard to flow.  If the card is kept in context in case, much of the exchanging of evidence and thus laptops in round could be eliminated.  

 

 

POLICY PARADIGM:  

Head Coach George Washington High School 10 Years. High School policy debater in a time before computers and when case debates were good. 

Experince judging on this topic: none. But I've coached and done research on it. 

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvienenced by a misunderstanding about anything said here. 

 

Most Importantly: I haven't judged circuit policy in a long time, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. 

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do. 

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I haven't judged at this level in a while, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed. Your arguments don't matter if I don't understand what you're saying. This is a communicative activity. 

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disapointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitly a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it. 

3. I'm comfortable evalutating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

4. I will call for cards. So if your evidence is bad, don't read it.  

5. A dropped arguement only matters if you tell me why. 

Vishaal Kunta Paradigm

i did pf in high school foot-in-mouth

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

paradigm [julia wu’s is good too]

- signpost, warrant, and weigh [impact calc cool]

- summary and ff should mirror each other

- if you frontline in second rebuttal, you're raw

- don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation

- ask me if you have any specific questions

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

music

- my spotify

- top five: frank ocean, tyler, the creator, brockhampton, travis scott, brockhampton, and kanye west

- others: playboi carti, a$ap rocky, rex orange county, aries, sza, lana del rey, steve lacy, earl sweatshirt, childish gambino, and ceddy bu [r.i.p.]

- p.s. if you can get lana and rocky married, 30's + win money-mouth

Sophia Lam Paradigm

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep and I'm a soph at uchicago

- if you have offense and you outweigh with said offense, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna weigh myself and you probably won't like that.

- I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round (abusive interpretation of the resolution or evidence issues). If you have questions on whether I'll be receptive to yours, ask. If I feel like you are using it as a cheap attempt to win, your speaks won't be too great either.

- I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- I hate nonresponsive responses. Tell me why your response matters/delinks their case.

- miscut evidence and you'll get a 25

- speed is mostly fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline but I like it when you do.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time but if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing.

Iain Lampert Paradigm

I realized my old paradigm had a bunch of outdated stuff. This is an update.

Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand. Debate as a whole may be never able to reconcile issues of access and elitism, but you as an individual debater can try not to actively perpetuate it.

I've watched just about every national debate final round in the NSDA's vault and a fair number of TOC outrounds in CX, LD, and PF. I understand PF pretty well.

Cross-examination should be used to clarify your narrative of the round and clean up any misconceptions about each other's arguments. A hyper-confrontational cross-ex is a waste of time and I'll tune it out.

If you're going to spread anything, I need to be on the email chain. I will assume that the sounds coming from your mouth symbolize the words in that document.

If you're talking fast but not spread-level, slow down for the stuff you really want me to flow. Emphasize it. Sometimes you're reading some card details and all that matters is a sentence or so. If you're leaving out some details, it's up to your opponent to make it clear and show why it matters.

If given the choice between something fast and something slow, I like something slow, but only if it's structured and still follows the basic tenets of debate (references to framework, uniqueness-link-impact, etc.). Some folks have confused 'slow' for 'speak pretty instead of having warrants.'

Make things really obvious. I don't know the material as well as you. You're really likely to lose my ballot when you thought you were winning if you assume that I know as much about the source material as you.

Be careful of powertagging. I called for a couple of crucial cards every round at TOC. Just about every card I called for was powertagged. When I didn't give that misrepresented evidence the weight the debaters hoped for, it often was determinative of my final decision.

When it comes to case debate, I'm biased towards voting for marginal net benefits and against high-magnitude, low-probability arguments. If explaining the link story to my non-debate colleagues would likely raise some eyebrows--if it doesn't pass the 'smell test'--you might not want to run it in front of me. That doesn't mean kick ALL nuke war impacts...just make a rock-solid link story so I'm at least convinced of its MODERATE probability.

I'm somewhat familiar with Kritiks that deal with antiblackness, feminism, capitalism, queer theory, biopower, and securitization. If a Kritik doesn't persuade me of its solvency, I have a very hard time voting for it.

I'm not a completely blank-slate judge. If something is glaringly incorrect, it's not like I'll ignore the argument entirely, but I'll probably do some subconscious work to diminish its weight in the round. I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. I wouldn't call myself tech over truth. At the same time, I don't know if a capital-T 'truth' is out there and I don't expect that my internal understanding of what's 'true' is the same as yours, so I can't confidently say I'm 'truth over tech.' Both matter.

Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I mess up. I like subpoints but I've found that a lot of mid-level debaters will start out referencing subpoints and then just start...like, saying words...in the back half of the round.

Don't tell me to cross-reference different points without doing your own work and telling me how the arguments interact.

Defense is normally sticky. Offense normally needs to be extended. I am unlikely to vote on an argument if it wasn't in the last set of speeches in the round, but never say never. If things are confusing enough, who knows what I'll do? I'm a loose cannon with an axe to grind and nothing to lose.

I believe in the "affirmative burden of proof" in LD and Parli. The AFF gets the privilege of having the last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If debaters argue to a draw, then I tend to "default NEG." This is not true in PF.

For a while, my speaker points were just based on rhetorical presence and fluency. Now, I find it difficult to disregard your strategic choices when calculating speaker points. I think that I'm still more sensitive to rudeness and disproportionate indignation than some other judges on the circuit.

John Latella Paradigm

I am interested in the thoughtful exchange of ideas. Students should be prepared to engage issues in a calm, focused manner without emphasis on the technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate.

Colleen Laurent Paradigm

Hi, I’m Colleen. I am the parent of a policy debater and a speech kid and have a deep respect for the work you put into this activity. I have had some experience judging, and I want you to debate the way that makes you most comfortable. Be clear and conversational and remember to WEIGH THE IMPORTANCE of the arguments you make. Without this crucial step, I will be forced to make that determination on my own and it may not go your way. I allocate speaker points as follows: 30 = Outstanding/Enlightening, 28 - 29 = Excellent, 27 – 28 = Good, 26 and under = You have done something unfair, unethical, etc.

Hannah Lee Paradigm

First time judge

Clara Lee Paradigm

Lay judge. Truth > tech. Speak slowly with little jargon, I will put my pen down if I can't follow you.

Some general things you should do:

- Tell me a story with your arguments

- Collapse strategically on 1 or 2 arguments in the back half of the round

- Write my ballot for me by doing comparative weighing

- Anything in FF must be in summary

Ezra Lerner Paradigm

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

Jawad Mamun Paradigm

tldr; flow judge. Do whatever you want, as long as it's clear and explained well, go crazy.

Contact Info: Facebook (my name) or email (jawadmamun@gmail.com). Def add me to the email chain if there is one.

General

I did debate (mainly PF and a teeeensy bit of Policy) for 4 years at Ridge (graduated in 2019) with meh success, but I'm generally pretty competent on the flow. I'll vote off the flow, but it won't hurt your speaker points to speak well and it's generally easier for me to understand you if you speak well. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary. Weigh as much and as early as possible, don't leave me to do any work because you won't like how I think. Don't extend through ink otherwise you'll make me very grumpy. Be funny (I will understand literally any Office reference you make, try me) and you'll be rewarded with speaks, be rude and you'll be punished. I enjoy watching people who look like they're having fun.

Rebuttal

I don't require the second rebuttal to frontline, but I do think it's a strategic decision to make. I love warrants and I prioritize warranted responses heavily over unwarranted card dumps.

Crossfire

I'm gonna be honest, I'll probably be on Reddit or messaging people (although probably on Reddit due to a lack of friends to message, F) during this time, so I'm probably not paying attention. I'll still be somewhat listening in the background, so concessions in crossfire are binding. It still needs to be brought up in a later speech though because I'm not flowing cross. In the event that I actually am paying attention during cross, I'd love it if you could entertain me by being funny (but not rude please!).

Summary

You don't need defense in first summary unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus must be in summary (this includes turns, etc.). Turns not extended in summary can be used as defense in final focus, but not as offense.

Speed

I love speed when it's used correctly: don't use it to card dump/drop one-lined responses, but using it to thoroughly explain warrants will be rewarded with high speaks. In PF, I doubt you'll hit a speed that I won't understand as long as you're clear. If you're not sure, just send a speech doc, I'd love that. I'll shout clear twice but after that I'm not flowing.

Theory

Use theory at your own risk: I'll happily vote off of it if there was a genuine abuse in the round, but my threshold is very low for responses against frivolous theories. That being said, I'll evaluate anything as long as it's well debated.

K's

I'll evaluate K's but try to keep it simple in PF (cap's great) and make sure you have a clear link. Please if you're running a K, do it well. Reading a K well will make me very happy. Reading a K poorly will make me very not happy.

Brian Manuel Paradigm

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Stanford, Harvard, and a crew of exceptionally talented college debaters I've had the pleasure to coach)

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta than you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses than maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016


HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is a mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any one set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments amongst participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; that the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and using it to get judges who will automatically check in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. Its not about who wrote the best constructives only. Its about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is bmanuel@stanford.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered.Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. I think this is a great question and I believe Gabe had an even better response. Therefore, I'll go with his answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era were students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasis the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must proves their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negatives burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2 year old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Suzuki and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; its what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - its rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This mean they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your life long friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or its won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am Currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full time coach. Debate is my full time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being ran every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Morgan Marguiles Paradigm

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

Hunter Martin Paradigm

I am an assistant coach of PF Debate at Charlotte Latin, and a junior at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I did PF debate for 4 years at Pinecrest High school in North Carolina. I am an Aries

My preferences are straightforward, although I would like to emphasize two points:

First, summary and final focus should be linked. More specifically, voting issues in final focus must be in summary as well.

Second, key-points of crossfire should be brought up again later in a speech. I will only write down CX concessions if they are in a speech.

Francis Mateo Paradigm

  • Students needs to be respectful to each other.
  • Students shall support their position clearly and precise
  • Students needs to be confident
  • Students shall own their statements
  • Students shall make their arguments relevant to the subjects discussed
  • Make it interesting
  • Convince me

Ishan Maunder Paradigm

Stolen from devesh:

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

**Optional Section**

If any individual in the round would prefer these rules not be applied, let me know at the start and I'll waive them for the round, no questions asked.

1. Effective use of Kanye West lyrics and/or Frank Ocean references will bump speaker points

Have fun, and best of luck! Seriously. Have fun. Otherwise it's not worth it.

Elisa McCartin Paradigm

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as an assistant PF coach. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- First summary does NOT need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, it WOULD be necessary. You do need to extend turns though if you want to go for them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already) because I don’t love when a second speaking team comes into final focus with all new weighing.

- I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I am super big on warrants. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached. I love a good warrant comparison. Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing.

-if you say anything like "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" or any like absurdly jargony thing I will tank your speaks.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks so don’t do that :)

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! I love when jokes are made in the round and debaters look like they are having a great time… that’s why we do this at the end of the day! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round.

Cale McCrary Paradigm

I’m the coach of Corona del Sol and an assistant for Brophy & Quarry Lane. I debated for Saint Mary’s Hall 3 years ago. I want my room to be safe, so let me know if you need any accommodations before the round.

I’m tab, so feel free to read any non-exclusionary argument (including theory, T, and K), just debate it well.

Otherwise:

  • Go as fast or slow as you want. If you want to spread, just make sure your opponents are cool with it and you send a doc to mccrarycale@gmail.com.
  • I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined. Dropped responses will stick, even if unextended.

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!

Ravishankar Menon Paradigm

I am a parent judge. Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 3 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

Jeffrey Miller Paradigm

Jeffrey Miller
Director of Speech & Debate at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2011-present)
Director of Debate/Asst Director of Debate, Fayette County High School in Fayetteville, GA (2006-2011)

Thoughts about the new PF rules:

1) 3 minute summaries don't change anything in the grand scheme of things. I still believe that a) teams should respond to the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal, b) everything in final focus needs to be in summary and c) there should be weighing throughout the round. What 3 minute summaries do effect is that they raise my standard for what is acceptable as an extension. Merely re-stating your claims is no longer enough to count as an extension - you have an extra minute - make actual arguments in the summary speeches.

2) The new paraphrasing rules indicate that you must have cut cards. Don't read that as you must read cards, but read it as I believe the new rules indicate that that for the protection of the debater you must have cut the card. I will not evaluate evidence that is not cut. I will not wait for you to cut a card in the post round if I need a piece of evidence. If I see you exchange evidence throughout the debate that is not cut, I will dock your speaker points.

Guide to Prefs Based Your Research Habits

If you cut cards & read cards in case & rebuttal -- I am probably a top 10 judge in your prefs. This is my ideal version of debate - I will flow the warrants of your cards and not just the taglines.

If you cut cards, read cards in case & paraphrase in rebuttal -- C'mon, its not that hard - just read cards in rebuttal. Believe me, the time you think are "wasting" by reading cards is worth it. But besides that, I'm probably a pretty good judge for you.

If you cut cards, but paraphrase throughout the debate -- I'm not your worst judge by far. I have a higher standard of holding arguments to their original context than others, but I won't vote you down just because you paraphrase. If this describes you, it is truly silly to strike me over someone who's never judged a debate before.

If you do not cut cards and you paraphrase -- strike me. please.

3) "Progressive" Argumentation, lol. I don't think there is enough time in a PF speech to warrant clearly most kritiks - that doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but it does mean that you're starting from a disadvantage because I don't think you can fully articulate why they should be voted on. For theory, there needs to be actual abuse and it needs to be used sparingly. Disclosure Theory is dumb, but sometimes necessary - I think misdisclosure is way worse than not disclosing. Paraphrasing Theory is also kind of dumb based on my previous statement of there needs to be actual abuse. If a team is paraphrasing a card poorly, you don't need theory to beat them - just beat their argument and call them out. Every other theory arg I've judged honestly doesn't have its place in the debate. Theory is not a way to win rounds, its a way to check bad behaviors.

**The Rest**

Debate is hard. I expect every debater to work hard before, during and after each tournament. Working hard means cutting cards and doing research on the topic. I expect debaters to not search for shortcuts to make this easier - doing your own research and cutting your own cards will pay dividends in all of your debates. In debates I judge you, you should expect I work hard to evaluate the debate and make the best decision possible. That's my guarantee to you.

Since Public Forum is a research based activity, I expect debates to be more about evidence usage and execution than persuasive speaking. If I expect debates to be about evidence usage, the prerequisite to this is having evidence and using it. I expect all five participants in the round (myself and the four debaters) to be well read on the topic and flow the debate. You should expect me to give you constructive feedback on the ballot as well as in round after the debate.

In debates, speeches build off of each other. It would be weird if we engaged in a communication activity where we ignored what the other person did right before our speech - that's why the second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal and so forth. Consistency is vital in debate therefore this expectation continues into the second half. Arguments that you extend in the final focus must be in the summary.

How do I define good evidence ethics?

Every card you read within a debate should be cited (by author, not institution) and be available (almost immediately) within context for your opponent to read. Within context does not mean full text, but the full paragraph of the cited line. (Asking for the full text of the study is dumb/waste 96% of the time, because you have 3 minutes of prep and I'm sorry you don't have enough time to read the full text. I understand sometimes you want to read the conclusion, but you still can't do that within the time limits of this event for more than 1 card usually.)

Teams who cannot quickly exchange evidence should not pref me - please strike me.

Don't lie or blatantly misrepresent about your evidence, I will drop you whether or not the argument is made in the round. I define lying or blatantly misrepresenting evidence as excluding key phrases that are in the text of the document that contradict your point, using portions of evidence to make arguments the authors do not intend, etc. Indicts are not lies or misrepresentations, they're arguments. Cards that are poorly cut/don't make a good argument are just not persuasive. Don't ruin the game, it's really fun when done correctly.

Come to the debate prepared and you won't have a problem.

What is my speaker point scale?

Speaker points are earned for the arguments you make in the debate. Every debater in every round starts at a 28.0. I will move up/down on a scale with steps of 0.1 and not 0.5. You're probably not going to get a 30 from me as that means you were truly perfect. Making smart, strategic arguments is going to maximize your points from me.

Rosemarie Miller Paradigm

Hi, I am a mom judge who takes notes. This is my fourth year judging and I have a daughter in Public Forum. I love to judge and listen to interesting argumentation, however making a decision in a close round is often a challenge for me so it would be to your advantage if you follow my paradigm and make this cleaner and easier for me to evaluate. P.S. if you ask for my paradigm it most likely won’t be as in depth as this; follow this don’t just “do your thing”.

  1. LINGO- Chances are, you all know more about the topic than me because you’ve been researching for weeks. this being said, make sure that you don’t throw around “topical lingo”. Make sure you explain to me the terms fairly clearly. Also, don’t use fancy debate rhetoric that is typically spammed for flow judges. If you say “turn” or “flow to our side” or “extend” I’m probably gonna get a little confused. Just explain to me where and how I should evaluate the argument. Also why are you giving a roadmap if it’s super complicated and you’re hopefully going to tell me where you are anyway???
  2. SPEAKING- The way I look at it, debate is about adapting to whoever your judge is. For the purpose of this round, it would be strategic to just persuade me. Make eye contact and show me that you’re engaged in the activity. ..It’s okay to be aggressive to an extent but don’t be rude to your opponents. If you’re getting “beat up” fight the fire with fire though… Usually I give midstream speaks around 26-28s but a 29 is relatively easy to get if you argue effectively, professionally, fluently, and have good argumentation the whole way through. That being said, I don’t think I’ve ever given a 30 but don’t let that stop you from trying to change that. Don’t go too fast, I want to be able to understand something your saying but even perfect diction probably won’t be able to compensate for this entirely- the slower the better.
  3. ANALYSIS- Please weigh. This will make both of our lives so much easier. I really don’t want to revert to being the judge who votes off of something random because it’s the only thing I remember or understand at the end of the round. Tell me why your link chain makes sense and why I should prefer it over your opponent’s. Also if both teams are weighing then tell me why to vote off of your weighing mechanisms, don’t just repeat them. When weighing, don’t just throw out random words like “scope” and “magnitude”- explain them to me and why it applies directly your argument.
  4. CLASH- I like when in debate, both sides are actually debating and not just giving two completely different sides. Obviously you don’t know if your cases are going to clash but in later speeches engage in the debate, this is probably where I’ll end up voting.

Susan Mistretta Paradigm

8 rounds

I've been involved in debate since 2007 and have served as judge regularly for Marist School on the local circuit for the past eight years. I am the Registrar at Marist and used to be a Math Teacher.

In terms of the debate, I prefer debaters to speak slowly, make good arguments and be polite.

Akbar Moolji Paradigm

I am a lay judge with little judging experience. Please speak slowly and clearly explain your arguments. Good luck and have fun!

Israel Morales Paradigm

Assume I know nothing.

Make it believable and accurate.

Be respectful.

Don't tell me what to think, present evidence and clear and concise explanations to weigh in my final decision.

Miles Morton Paradigm

8 rounds

Miles Morton

I did both speech and debate at Valley International Prep (VIP) in high school.

I currently compete in NFA LD for WKU.

Speech Experience: 2019 USX national finalist (NSDA), 2018 Impromptu National Champion (NSDA) 26 other Championships in OO, USX, FX, OA, and Congress throughout 2018/19.

Debate Experience: 6th at CHSSA 2018 (PF), 5 championships in PF and Parli.

Coaching Experience: I've been doing private coaching since graduating from high school, I also occasionally coach for VIP.

PUBLIC FORUM:

- Speed is fine but please be clear! Or email

- Extensions should always be in summary for arguments brought up in ff. Extending card names makes it easier to follow and with 3-minute summaries there is no excuse not to.

- Defense doesn't need to be extended in second summary.

- CX is not flowed, but make it fun to watch without being mean please :)

- Weighing is what the decision is based on, please do the weighing for me... PLEASE. If you don't I default mag>prob>timeframe.

- Cards that are called for should be found in less than a minute and a half, after that you're running prep.

- Off-time roadmaps are always welcome.

- Cards that sound suspicious will be called.

- Speaks are in my opinion arbitrary and annoying I usually give everyone 29 and take away points for being rude or obnoxious both during AND in between speeches. (Just be nice to each other please.)

OTHER GENERAL THINGS:

Please don't preflow in the round. It just makes the round start late. You know what your case is regardless of the side so just preflow aff and neg and then once the flip happens use the preflow for whatever side you end up being on. Honestly, preflowing online is a good way to do it as well. Just type out a preflow for aff and a preflow for neg and then print like 10 of each so you always have one going into round and don't have to use time creating them.

Please speak loudly. Projection is really important and will keep me focused on what you're saying. This is especially important in early morning rounds when everyone is half asleep.

I don't time you. Please just keep each other accountable. Always time your opponents and if they're still going after the grace period ends just show me the timer and I'll stop listening to them.

Filling time is not important: If you've already said everything you plan on saying in your rebuttal and find yourself with a minute and a half remaining don't just re-iterate everything you've already said. I will not penalize/hold against you a 30-second rebuttal, I actually much prefer that to you trying to fill the other 3:30 with everything else.

Feel free to email me if you have questions

milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

Michael Moshes Paradigm

Hi! My name is Mike, and I am a parent judge from Newton South High School.

Here is what I want to see in a debate round:

1. I want to hear slow speech. If you speak quickly, I will not understand you and I will not give you the win. Even if your argument is smarter and better explained, if you speak too fast none of this will matter.

2. Please connect your speeches back to the resolution. I want to know exactly what I am voting for. For example, tell me what happens when the EU joins the BRI, and why it matters.

3. Do not shout and interrupt during the cross fire. It makes the debate messy and uninformative.

4. I will not disclose my decision, because I like to think about the arguments in depth before I submit my decision. I will give comments on tabroom.

Thanks.

Dan Musat Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a father of a Bronx Science Debate team member, toughened up by pro and con debates on everything with her on a daily basis.

I am ok with the speed, but I appreciate clear speech, and enunciation.

I vote off the flow, so make sure to extend all of your links along with their impacts.

Be considerate of your opponents, and do not interrupt excessively.

Call me "Your Honor" instead of judge and you might be eligible for higher speaker points... just kidding (or maybe not)

At the end of the day, make sure to have fun!

Laura O'Brien Paradigm

I am a parent judge. Although I have judged before and have a very basic understanding of flowing, please do not speak too quickly or use jargon.

I value a clear narrative. You should have a clear extension of your argument through round that really expresses the significance of what you are arguing.

Implicate turns and defense! Tell me how your responses are relevant to the round. Warrants are more important than cards.

Please weigh!

Have fun :)

Pascal O'Neill Paradigm

8 rounds

I did Public Forum for three years at Bronx Science. I can flow any speed but if you’re gonna talk fast please speak clearly.

Speaker points will be rewarded based on 1. How easy you make it for me to flow what you're saying. 2. The content of what you are saying. I don't care too much how you sound as long as I can understand.

Important things

Defense that is not responded to sticks until final focus. Defense does not need to be extended in the first or second summary unless it was addressed by the other team. Turns need to be clearly extended in summary and final focus for me to evaluate them as offense. If they're non-responsive you should be weighing them.

Weighing matters a lot. If you don’t weigh you’re link or impacts, I will have to do it for you which is not good but if you do it will make your case so much stronger. Also avoid relying on obvious stuff like magnitude and scope, and focus on all the other ways your argument might possibly matter more than theirs. I hold lots of value in probability analysis. If any step of the argument isn’t probable, it likely has no impact. Also, weigh in rebuttal if you can, and all essential weighing should be said in both summary and final focus.

On Kritiks/theory/spreading/other non-PF things

I’m generally open to anything however, you must ask the other team for consent. When you change the style of the debate, you are changing the activity, and with most activities you need consent. Theory is justified in obvious abuse.

Kritiks: I feel like I’m well versed enough to evaluate these and if not that’s your problem.

I will call for cards if they’re very important but too sus. If you know your opponents are lying about evidence tell me to call for it.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Jasper Ou Paradigm

I debated for Lake Highland Prep on the national circuit for four years. I qualified to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior year. I was a quarter-finalist my senior year.

Don't call me "judge." Just call me "Jasper."

I personally believe I'm not a good judge.

General:

*Stolen from Devesh Kodnani*

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Specific:

*Condensed version of Sandeep Shankar's*

Crossfire:

Although I won't flow crossfire, I will be paying attention. I strongly believe that crossfire is an important part of the round in terms of the development of your strategy and case narrative. Therefore, any concessions or answers out of any crossfire will be binding.

Frontlining:

My willingness to accept responses decreases as the round progresses. For example, a simple answer in second rebuttal would be sufficient as a frontlines, but wouldn't if it was in second summary. I believe that not only is frontlining in second rebuttal strategic, but also is fair for the first speaking team.

*Important* You must frontline turns in the second rebuttal. If you fail to frontline turns in the second rebuttal, I will consider it conceded and clean offense for the other side.

Defensive/Offensive Extensions:

Given the new NSDA rules, I believe that the extension of defense is not nearly as hard as it was previously. Therefore, please extend your defense. It makes judging the round much easier.

I consider "an extension" of an argument if and only if the warrant and implication/impact are extended. Just saying the turn doesn't do me any good.

*First summary only* If you decide to go for certain arguments in your summary, you must respond to fronlintes made by the opposing team if the opposing team made them. If you don't plan to go for certain arguments, don't bother frontlining. For example, if you want to extend a turn but that turn has been frontlined, you have to respond to the frontline in order to gain a full extension of the turn. (This is true for both offensive and defensive extensions).

Miscellaneous:

I am really, really bad at evaluating progressive argumentation (theory, Ks, etc). So I highly advise you not to run these arguments in front of me, unless you want a horrible decision.

I can handle a pretty high threshold for speed, but please refrain for spreading (I am not good). If you do plan to speak fast, please make sure that you can do it in a clear manner and your opponents are okay with it. If I figure that you are spreading to gain an unfair advantage over inexperienced debaters, I will drop you instantly. No questions asked.

I will disclose. The only exception is if there is a stupid rules indicating that I will get fined.

Morgan Pace Paradigm

I did PF for three years at Columbus High School and am now a junior at Emory University. Im probably not very different than any standard flow judge. For specifics:

1. I try to vote on whatever offense is cleanest in the round, whether it be dropped turns or something from case. This basically just means that the easiest way to get my ballot is collapsing and weighing as early as possible.

2. I like consistency between summary and final focus, so if you plan on going heavily for something in ff, structure the summary accordingly. I'm not against 1st speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to final assuming that it's explained well in rebuttal, but I still prefer to hear it in summary.

3. I'm not receptive to long offensive overviews in rebuttal that are basically new contentions and am very unlikely to vote on them. Second rebuttal should also address offense from 1st rebuttal - defense can be responded to in summary, but like responding earlier is still probably better

4. I don't care about speed, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I don't flow author names typically, so please don't extend just names.

5. for speaks: big fan of being funny and signposting. dont steal prep.

6. preflow before round!!!

Peter Paik Paradigm

Personal Background:

Since 2001, I have been the head coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

 

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. TECHNICALITY: While it has become a norm and a custom, there is NO RULE that what is spoken in the final focus has to be spoken first in summary. It makes sense that most effective teams will make the two speeches consistent with each other, and by bringing up a point as an important one in the summary speech you considerately identify it as something that your opponent should respond to in the remaining 7 minutes if the opponent is speaking second (summary, GCF, final focus) or 5 minutes if your opponent spoke first (GCF and final focus). So it is certainly a good general practice to "line up" the summary and the final focus.

However, again, it is NOT a rule that the final focus must only contain points that were made in summary. It is only a rule that the final focus cannot bring up new arguments. I interpret that to mean that the final focus can bring up any points that were previously introduced at any point in the round prior to the final focus. Further, I would likely also accept what may be a new defensive response/rebuttal to an opponent's offensive point. Just no completely brand new offense can be introduced.

My position on this issue is rooted in what I said above about making/keeping PF as accessible as possible: I don't think most lay people understand or care about the technical norm of having the summary and the final focus line up perfectly.

Additionally, that norm has had an unintended, pernicious effect, in my view, of reducing the quality of the second half of the debate: Now summary speakers simply try to cram in everything they can into summary because if they don't mention it, then their partners believe they can't bring it up in final focus. And final focus speakers more or less simply rehash what summary speakers say. What I would like to see is more thinking in the second half. I would like to see development of arguments. Debaters reaching a new level of insight. I want to hear something at a higher level of understanding than what I heard in the rebuttal speeches, not just more rebuttal. Please.

By the way, my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010.


LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not. 

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge. 

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves. 

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas. 

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with. 

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one. 

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view. 

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….) 

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling. 

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round. 

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues. 

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent. 

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible. 

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

Ulrich Palha Paradigm

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments

I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,

Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal/slightly faster than normal speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.

Clearly identify your arguments, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate

Generally, I will call for cards only if asked.

Lastly, have fun!

Natalie Polanco Paradigm

Image result for much serious very debate

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.

Sabela Ralston Paradigm

First Time judge

Fabian Redler Paradigm

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

Ranjan Routray Paradigm

Name: R. Ranjan Routray

School Affiliation: Cinco Ranch High School, Katy, TX

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 0.5 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0.5 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation? Management Consultant and Program Manager

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Speed on it's own is not that important. However, it should not be too slow, neither it should be so fast that audience has a hard time understanding or following. Clarity of communication is important.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Summarize conclusion and recap key supporting points, in bullet format

Role of the Final Focus: Important. Recap your key point(s), rebut opponents key point(s), expose any inconsistencies by your opponents

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: no strong opinion

Topicality: like setting a common ground

Plans: like setting a common ground

Kritiks: don't like off-topic arguments

Flowing/note-taking: ok

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? - Argument more important than style, still style can not be completely ignored.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No strong opinion either way.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. I am a relatively new judge who has judged few tournaments. Since I have no formal debate coaching background (except debating in school long time back), I may not be as structured as a debate coach. I look for the following:

- Clarity of expression and thought,

- Consistency of argument,

- Successful defense of your own position,

- Finding weaknesses in opponents arguments,

- Clear and concise closing arguments.

Andy Roz Paradigm

I'm not a lay judge, but I am a lame judge

Profanity permitted, bigotry prohibited

Warrants conquer cards

Be clean and clear

Time is law

slow.

Gabe Rusk Paradigm

PF Paradigm 2019-2020 Season:

Big Things

  • What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth/comparative probability and warrant analysis.
  • Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
  • Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparative warrants between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over theirs (not sufficient though).

Little Things

  • What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.
  • If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
  • Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
  • If it takes more than 2:00 minutes to find YOUR own card your own prep time starts kicking in until you find it. Smh y'all. Especially case cards. They are your case cards!
  • If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
  • My favorite question in cx is: Why?
  • My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or comparative warrant analysis" or "prefer our empirical analysis or evidence because..."
  • Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
  • Don't read definitions if the judge is familiar with the topic. Waste of time.
  • I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
  • I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative brightlines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
  • If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
  • I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical and/or theoretical roads. Here be dragons.
  • Offtime road maps fine
  • Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me!
  • To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/

Gabe Rusk

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

Coaching Experience: 10+ years of coaching, instructor at 12+ debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and Assistant PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, free speech, art law, copyright law, & SCOTUS history.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Ahhhhh! You made it this far. If you want a free First Amendment sticker let me know! They are an exact copy of the one on my laptop.

Michael Sanseverino Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vlad Savransky Paradigm

I am an experienced parent judge with background in judging PF and Parli formats.

Emily Scruggs Paradigm

My experience with debate tournaments and high school debate in general, is limited. This is my first time judging public forum.

Wayne Selogy Paradigm

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

Tej Shah Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ekta Shah Paradigm

Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:

· I’m not a former debater.

· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.

· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.

· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.

· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.

· My email is eshah@quarrylane.org. Start an email chain.

· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!

Christian Sheerer Paradigm

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a freshman at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely ask me any specifics before the round and everything in Hebron Daniel's paradigm applies, especially the World Star section.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Hebron&search_last=Daniel

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Bob Shurtz Paradigm

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy - let's avoid kritiks, disads, plans, counterplans and theory arguments.

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

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

Rajendra Singh Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am now a freshmen at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. However, if you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPEAK AS FAST* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. Tabula rasa

Longer Version:

1) Time yourself and your prep, I don’t need to be there for the coin flip, but if you’re Aff please sit to my left and you’re Neg sit to my right (It will make my job of knowing who’s who easier). Take off your jacket, etc I don’t really care about your appearance, I’m there to judge and that’s what I will do.

2) Don’t read CP’s or T’s or Shells. I did PF not Policy so if you want to do that, 9/10 I won’t vote on it. PLEASE DO NOT SAY ONE OFF. I don’t know what that means 😂 don’t make me more confused. Only use theory if it’s absolutely necessary

3) I may know about the topic, and I may not know about the topic, I will try my best to read up on the topic and potential arguments before the tournament, but I will not be as informed as you are. THIS PART OF MY PARADIGM WILL BE UPDATED FOR THE TOURNAMENT

FOR BRONX:

I am a little informed on the topic: I have read through the briefs and know a bit about the arguments but remember I didn't go to 3 camps on BRI or do 5 different tournaments on it, so obviously you know more than me.

Impacts are SUPER SUPER important. Make sure to read impacts and go for impacts along with warrants in summary and final focus. DO META WEIGHING!!!!!

OFFENSIVE OVERVIEWS: Not a big fan but if you want to, just tell me before you start your speech. I better not need to get another piece of paper 😂

4) Make sure not to go for everything in the summary. The summary is one of, if not the hardest speech in the round so I’ll be paying close attention to that speech.

4.5) OFF TIME ROADMAPS: Do them if you’re doing something abnormal. For ex, in first rebuttal don’t say I’m just gonna respond to their case.

5) 2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline all responses, but they should frontline TURNS. I don't care if you frontline first or frontline last, just frontline

5.5) Now that Summary is 3 mins, I am expecting the 1st summary to extend defense** When you extend defense, That’s a perfect time to do some meta weighing and comparative weighing.

If if you want me to call for evidence, I will, just tell me to. I might just want to call for cards on my own. Don’t take 5 minutes to pull it up because I will get annoyed.

6) I LOVE WHEN TEAMS DO LINE BY LINE AND NARRATIVE DEBATE. If you can do a mix of line by line with cards and at the end, painting a picture of both worlds, you are winning the debate and my heart. Note that line by line doesn’t mean saying “extend these 4 cards we tell you in case about BRI perpetuating climate change and extend our impact about lives.” You’re not telling me which cards specifically and you’re not telling me why do I care about the environment? YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT if I notice you doing line by line AND narrating the debate in your final speeches.

7) START WEIGHING AS EARLY AS REBUTTAL AND YOU WILL GET +1 speaks. Weighing is important as well. Unlike some judges, I like when you use buzzwords like (magnitude, scope) but make sure it’s comparative. If I am weighing econ v lives and you’re outweighing on scope, tell me our Econ impact outweighs lives because they only affect 10 lives, we increase the economy by 200,000, that’s a clear reason to outweigh us.

7.5) Have funny and catchy tag lines.

8) If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

If you be unique with your weighing, (outweighing on clarity of impact, uniqueness), I’ll give you +1 speaks.

9) This is the most important thing; Have fun! This is an activity that you should enjoy, so please have fun.

Please Don’t be Afraid to ask me questions before the round. I want to make sure everyone is comfortable.

10) P.S. If you bring me snacks, or a caramel iced coffee, you will give +1.5 speaks and make me very happy ^ Maybe that’s more important than having fun xDDD JK

Charlotte Slovin Paradigm

--Updated for Bronx Sci 2019--

Charlotte Slovin (she/her)

If there’s an email chain I’d like to be on it (sasadebate@gmail.com). Absolutely no to PocketBox or whatever other document uploading site.

I did Policy for 4 years at Oakwood.

I’ll disclose after the round so please stick around for a verdict and comments.

PF: I continue to be disappointed by the incredibly low standard of what is considered "evidence" in this activity. This is not to say that research is not being done (sometimes...hopefully), but that within a given round the "paraphrasing" of evidence that is accepted along with difficult access to the actual evidence is shameful. I am trying to come up with a system where debaters are held accountable for having their evidence accessible and while I know that this cannot be asked of every Public Forum debater I BEG of you to PLEASE have your ev/PDFs on hand before the round starts. I see your bullshit.

- Speed is fine but don’t do it just if you think it’s “cool” or you think you’ll get points with me. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity. Speak the way that is best for you and your strategy.

- Please warrant and weigh your claims if you want me to evaluate them.

- Please signpost. It will help both of us.

- Theory is fine but I will take it very seriously. ONLY run it if there is serious and overt abuse but warrant it well if you want it to be a voting issue.

- Minus 0.1 speaks every time you pronounce nuclear as “nuke-you-lar” I am completely serious.

***Most importantly, please please PLEASE remember that your opponent is a person before they are a competitor. Debate is engaging because of the competition, but things can (and do) go too far. I have been on both sides of this equation. Be considerate, be respectful. Don’t make this a space that breeds inconsiderate individuals. It is up to YOU to cultivate an activity where everyone can feel safe, have fun, and learn.

Emma Smith Paradigm

Hi! I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida for 4 years and graduated in 2019. I’m now a freshman at Duke University.

I understand that there are different styles of debate and believe that you should debate in whatever way you are comfortable doing so. However, there are a few things that you should remember while debating in front of me:

I will only vote on arguments extended in BOTH summary and final focus (warrant + impact = argument).

Second rebuttal isn’t required to frontline but I do think it is strategic to do so (especially turns).

First summary doesn’t need to extend terminal defense.

PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COLLAPSE! Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments :)

WEIGH. Compare your arguments to your opponents’ arguments and tell me which are more important and why.

The faster you speak, the less I am able to flow. If I miss something because you were too fast or unclear, its your fault not mine.

I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on an egregious instance of abuse in the round. Use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory #sorrynotsorry.

Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. I think that judges should interfere as little as possible in the round but if I deem your behavior to be excessively rude, condescending, arrogant, or hateful, I will drop you.

I LOVE when teams look like they are genuinely having a good time. I feel like debaters tend to get way too intense- debate is supposed to be fun! Make jokes, smile, laugh at yourself, don't be mean.

Hopefully this covered everything but if you still have questions after reading please feel free to ask before the round.



Deanna Snellings Paradigm

I've competed in all forums of debate and most of the individual events, but I spent an overwhelming majority of my time in Lincoln Douglas. I have degrees in international affairs and economics, and am currently in a master's program for data analytics.

General preferences: I value both traditional and progressive debate, and tend to enjoy a blend of the two more than just one over the other. I prefer quality over quantity, so don't just throw evidence at me without analysis.I judge solely off of what is said in round during speeches. I suggest you give me voters if you want me to pick out something specific, but major arguments and key points are up to my discretion.

Speed: I have no speed preferences-- just be clear. If you're going to spread, I expect that you ask your opponent if it is okay. I want a good debate, so your opponent needs to be able to hear you.

Cross ex: I don't flow cross ex (or pay attention to it at all), so if you say something that you want me to pay attention to, you need to repeat it in a speech.

Theory: I don't like it. I understand it, but I think it is unproductive to debate. I probably won't weigh it as much as you want me to. Take that how you want. If you're going to tell me that your opponent is being abusive, you need to have a good reason to justify that claim.

Ks/DAs/CPs/etc: Run them if you want, but do it well or do not do it. I will always prefer argument that encourages good debate and poorly run Ks, DAs, CPs, etc do not encourage that.

Affirmative Burden: I believe the affirmative has the burden of proof. Normally (not always), I will vote neg if the affirmative does not prove the resolution regardless of the negative argument.

Disclosing: I always disclose and critique unless the debaters or tabroom tell me not to. Don't try to convince me you won the round after the round. It's your job to convince me in round.

Ted Snyder Paradigm

I'm a parent judge, and have been judging at various public forum tournaments for the past 6 years.

I have worked for 30+ years as a litigating attorney, so I understand what works as a persuasive argument. I value logical arguments supported by evidence (not just conclusory statements). Tie your arguments to the resolution, and explain based on the evidence and logic why I should vote in your favor on the merits. You should address and not ignore your adversaries' points.

Please do not speak too fast, make sure you have the evidence ready and available if it is called for, and be civil and respectful at all times.

Hongbiao Song Paradigm

I’ve been a debate judge for 13 years, and I enjoy judging debate very much! I like to do research on the debate topics before I judge each debate. I will not only pay attention on your delivery, but also on how well you did your research and how deep you understand the debate topic. You should be an expert on your debate topic to convince me.

I want to you to speak clearly and not too fast so that I can remember and write done your key points. If I cannot catch your points, you lose those points. That may reduce your chance to win.

Do not just dump a lot of information. I would like to see your clear rationality, good analysis and strong reasoning based on solid evidence, instead of widely circulated false news or assumptions.

During the cross fire, I would like to listen one person speak at one time. Please do not interrupt others’ speech when others haven’t finished. Do not try to dominate the cross fire time, give your opponent fair chance to speak.

Please speak very clearly in your summary and final focus. This is your last chance to convince me. I will vote objectively based on your arguments, impacts, evidence, reasoning, questioning, defense, delivery and your expertise on the debate topic.

Shane Stafford Paradigm

8 rounds

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.

Public Forum

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:

General issues

--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 Ethics

--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.

Strategic issues

--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.

Oliver Stern Paradigm

I was a pretty competitive PF debater all throughout high school and am currently a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Things I want to See:

-Please tell me where you are on the flow (sign posting). Nothing is worse than when kids are spewing and you don't know where to write it

-WEIGHING! Believe it or not, both teams will be winning some sort of offense at the end of the round. The only way you can convince me to vote for you is to tell me why your offense is more important than you opponent's offense.

-clash!!

-The best debates are ones where both teams have a central narrative that they are extending and expanding on throughout the round. While you can win by merely extending one turn that was dropped, I will be a lot happier voting for a team that has a strong narrative and story that convinces me not only on paper (flow), but also perceptually and emotionally (I know that is cheesy, but it's true)

Things I don't want to see:

-If you spread, I will not flow. The easiest way to ensure that I'm flowing is to look at me while you are speaking. If I am flowing, then your speed is fine. If not, then you are going waaaay too fast and need to slow down.

-You should be able to pull up all of your evidence within 30 seconds max. If not, I will get really annoyed and ask you why it is taking so long.

-Cross Fires are a chance to ask strategic questions that help set up your partner for their next speech or help to drive and frame the narrative that you are going for. However, if you use this time to just yell over your opponents, I will be annoyed and drop your speaker points.

-While I debated with summaries being two minutes long, I still expect your summaries to have the same purpose: to summarize the debate. A summary is not where you extend every piece of offense and spread in order to do so. It should be a structured speech that defends one of your important arguments and extends offense on your opponents arguments. If you go all over the flow trying to cover everything, you will certainly not get 30 speaker points from me and my flow will look messy which will be harder for me to make a decision at the end of the round.

Speaker Points:

Speak well, make concise and compelling arguments, use rhetoric that will convince me to vote for me and you are well on your way to a 29 or 30.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, don't hesitate to ask me before round. Also, if my RFD didn't make sense, please find me after round and ask so that I can explain myself better. Sometimes I just rush through so that the tournament can run smoothly.

Laurie Strauch weiss Paradigm

Updated for the New York City Invitational

This is my second time judging. However, I used to debate in college so I want to hear persuasive arguments backed up by solid evidence. I am relatively well-informed on the topic and on current news regarding the BRI so please don't read untrue arguments.

Speech Specific Preferences:

- Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal should read frontlines

- Summary: Consolidate the round, and please don't read new frontlines in 2nd summary

- Final Focus: Give me voter points in final focus, I don't want to have to do a lot of work for you on the flow. Don't bring up new points in final focus that weren't in your summary.

General Preferences:

- Please be well spoken and respectful, I will lower your speaks if you spread and are rude/talk over each other in crossfire

- Signpost please and I don't mind if you want to give an off-time roadmap

- I expect extensions to include extensions of the link, warranting, and impact, not just a card name or contention title.

- If you think it's important that I look at a specific piece of evidence, tell me to call for it - don't misrepresent your evidence

- Keep your own time

- Don't use a lot of jargon

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.

PF specific:

-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

Laura Sword Paradigm

Justin Sword here. Some advice for my mother as a judge:

Speak slowly. She used to be a congress judge and a lawyer for some time so she isn't able to flow speed but knows the very basics of flowing and would prefer good presentation as well. Just be persuasive.

Signpost. pls. Just like general lay judge advice here, if you signpost it makes it easier for anyone to flow.

Logic and clarity. Probably not the right judge to run nuke war scenarios with. Real-world, warranted arguments are definitely gonna be better.

Weigh and respond to your opponents weighing. More general debate advice but specifically it just makes it easier to evaluate a round and to have ur judge know what the most important argument it.

Don't say anything rude or offensive. Just not a move. In any round.

Other things:

- quality over quantity. Don't card dump

- definitely no progressive arguments. Probably also don't want to read large disads or offensive overviews.

- Implicate everything. Explain why what you say is important so she doesn't have to do that analysis for you.

- And signpost again. Super important. For rebuttal, frontlining, weighing. Everything.

-

Jie Tang Paradigm

I am the parent of a debater. Please:

1. Be courteous

2. Don't speak too quickly

3. Explain everything thoroughly

4. DON'T go new in the two just because I am a lay judge

Good luck and have fun! I look forward to judging your rounds.

Mira Toth Paradigm

I am a parent judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

I have judged a few Policy Debates, Public Forum.

Yes, I would like to be included on the email chain. myrantoth@gmail.com

I will vote you down if you show disrespect towards your opponent.

Be kind and have a great debate.

You may speak as fast as you wish. If I will have any difficulties to understand you I will raise my hand.

Kate Totz Paradigm

Disclaimers

  • If spreading (circuit LD and policy case args only): can flow analytics accurately without a doc ~75% of the time, basically if you want it to be 100% on the flow, send it on the doc.

  • Really big on structure and connecting the dots - lots of good rounds feel like a conspiracy murder board with all of the pins but no string attaching them (Megan Wu)

  • Debate is about advocacy and learning about how to make better advocacies, don’t be an asshole, don’t take away educational opportunities from others, and have the debate that you want to and we’ll have a good time.

Background/General

  • Coach at Brentwood and Mirman; specialize in circuit LD, but coach LD and PF, so good topic knowledge on both.

  • Competed for Maple Grove Senior High in Minnesota for 3 years in PF and LD.

PF

  • I coach PF, I have good topic knowledge
  • I will not do any work for you - if you want me to fully understand an argument, you need to allocate speech time to it.
  • I flow cross - try to not yell or speak over each other or interrupt each other if you want to get anything strategically meaningful out of them.
  • Offense-defense extension in summary is a personal strategy choice based on the end game you see by summary.
  • K's, T, and Theory are all fine strats in PF to me, BUT I do feel like the time structure makes it very difficult to run a K well and fully explain how the K interacts with other arguments on the flow. And the lack of traditional predictability in PF (no disclosure, no set first-speaking side, etc.) makes it harder to run T/Theory, but I'm down to vote on anything as long as you're winning it.
  • Any more questions, ask me before or after round.

My general speaks scale (for circuit LD and PF):

  • Below 26 - serious issues with the delivery (enunciation/speed/tone) that prevent me from catching arguments, arguments that are just bad for the debate space (oppression of any kind is good, etc.), completely uncivil/rude cross, stealing prep, and/or complete lack of a strategic plan of attack.

  • 26.5 - some issue with delivery, but not to the point that it infringes on the argumentation, civil but unproductive cross, some strategy but major issues with the execution.

  • 27 - very few issues with delivery, civil and productive cross, decent strategy choice given the round, but no clear speech structure or collapse.

  • 27.5 - no issues with delivery, good strategy choice, and the beginnings of structured rebuttals, but still room for improvement on both fronts.

  • 28 - early elimination round level, no issues with delivery, no issues with strategy choice, and rebuttals that are very clear with what page of the flow I am on, but not where on that flow you want me to be.

  • 29 - late elimination round level, no issues with delivery, no issues with strategy, extremely well-structured rebuttals, and a clear route to the ballot outlined in speeches.

  • 30 - beyond phenomenal, no issues with any aspect of the debate, builds to a route to the ballot throughout round, introduces new and ingenuitive ways of thinking about arguments, with rhetoric that leaves me feeling moved by the advocacy.

K’s

  • Non-t affs are cool, but every part of the performance in the debate space needs to be purposeful and impacted out if you are going to go for one. Also, non-t affs need to have some sort of advocacy/alternative/plan that I can engage in order to garner offense.

  • K v. case and K v. T/theory is a debate that should be had in round - how I default on these issues depends on the nature of the K.

  • My beef with Baudrillard - 1) I feel like a lot of the ‘performative’ aspects in round tend to be less strategically performative (ie - it doesn’t do anything to help me feel the dissonance I should walk away from the speech act having) and more just a method to confuse other debaters. I’m not down with that. And 2) I just still feel like the question at the end of the day that NO ONE has answered for me is.... why is debate the correct format for the nothing matters k thesis?

  • I don’t think it’s possible to win a K without a clear ‘story’ of how the K functions somewhere in the round - this includes isolating specific links, how those links trigger the impact, what the alt is, and how the alt resolves the impacts of the K, etc.

Theory/Topicality

  • (LD only) I will vote on RVIs, but it tends to be extremely contextual to the round. Meaning that I will probably only sign the ballot on an RVI if the shell is a) not frivolous and b) significantly impacts the way that we think about norms in the debate space.

  • The easiest way to get me to vote on topicality is to think of some sort of empirical way to weigh the impacts of the interp.

    • For example, if you’re gonna collapse to a limits standard, the easiest way to get me to want to vote on it is to give me an approximate number of how far the counter-interp would expand aff ground/how many new affs are possible.

Alyssa Turk Paradigm

I was a public forum debater in high school and have coached PF debaters since then.

I am a flow judge. I can follow speed, but I would prefer you only use it when necessary.

I have a few things you should keep in mind:

I love framework. I am a framework junkie. I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence, extend the warrant not just the author (because sometimes I don't write down the tag and just the warrant).

Everything in final focus must also be in summary speech.

I do not flow crossfires. If you make an argument in crossfire or your opponent concedes an argument in crossfire, you must say it in a speech in order for me to flow it.

I will give you poor speaker points for being rude to opponents. Being aggressive and being rude are two different things. Don't be afraid to be aggressive, just DO NOT treat your opponents as if they are dumb or lesser than you.

Jim Verquist Paradigm

Hello! I am a second-year judge for public forum high school debates. I look forward to hearing you debate!

For each person, I score your two speeches and crossfire on scale of 25-30. Then I average the 3 numbers and deduct any decorum penalties. Here’s what I’m looking for:
a. Construction: Present your case = succinct organization, sound reasoning, credible evidence, and clear delivery.
b. Rebuttal: Refute opposing side's arguments. Do not use Rebuttal to cram in more arguments.
c. Summary: Crystallize your case, in light of everything that has happened.
d. Final Focus: Frame with clarity why your team won the debate.
e. Crossfire: Dig into other side’s arguments during CX rounds to find weaknesses.
f. Decorum: I expect professional decorum at all times. I penalize anything less.

My hope is this approach will give you more insight into the areas where you are strong, and where you can improve.

Do not "spread," or speed read (more than ~150 words per minutes). You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more. You will not earn points if I can't understand you, or process what you say.

Be reasonable about requesting evidence. Request evidence you don’t believe or you feel is misrepresented. But don’t request evidence you already know to be true. And make sure your evidence is well organized to maximize efficiency in case a team calls for your evidence.

In scoring each speech and crossfire, I ask myself 3 questions:
1. Did you focus on the task at hand?
2. Did I understand the argument?
3. Was the argument persuasive?

Speaker #1 points = [Construction + Summary + Crossfire] / 3 - Decorum Penalties = [a + c + e] / 3 - f
Speaker #2 points = [Rebuttal + Final Focus + Crossfire ] / 3 - Decorum Penalties = [b + d + e] / 3 - f

The final score for each person will be 24-30 points: [24] bad decorum. [25-26] below average. [27-28] average. [29-30] above average.
The team with the most points wins the debate. In the case of a tie, I decide based on which side I found more persuasive.

Good luck!

Sunil Wahal Paradigm

I am a parent judge, but I have judged lots of rounds and have been told I am a "flay" judge. I am a financial economist and professor, so I have a deep understanding of arguments. I am against spreading of all kinds. Speak slowly and clearly if you want me to flow. I understand some jargon but I believe debate should cater to all kinds of people and should be largely jargon-free. I do not flow cross but I do pay attention to make sure every team understands their arguments. If a team makes a key concession in cross, make sure to mention it in your speeches. I am Truth > Tech, so I am very unlikely to vote for absurd cases. I am not familiar with Ks or theory, but if they are very well explained I will vote based on them. However, I would prefer it if debaters strayed from this type of debate unless an egregious violation of debate rules occurs. If necessary, I will call for evidence. If you want me to vote off particular evidence, it must be in final focus, but not necessarily summary. PLEASE weigh. If an argument is really muddled, tell me which argument I should prioritize and why. It makes my decision a lot easier.

Please time yourself. I want aff on my left, and neg on my right. Please be respectful to everyone in the room. Language etiquette is important. I do not want to shake your hand.

Samuel Wallman Paradigm

I am a first year coach for the Hackley School PF Debate team. I do not have any previous experience with Public Forum or other formats of Debate.

I come from a Humanities background. An an educator and a historian, I am well versed in strong research practices and good argumentation techniques. I am very familiar with the topic in isolation and as it relates to broader global affairs, and as such, do not need you to 'educate' me on the topic as much as other lay judges.

I will not hesitate to call for any evidence at the end of the round that I feel is suspicious.

As for my judging criteria, given my lack of experience with Public Forum, I will favor teams who utilize clear and articulate arguments. I prefer debaters who avoid heavy uses of unnecessary jargon or speak too quickly and to be understood. I will not be reliant on specific parts of the flow to make my decision. I will also be paying attention to crossfire on the strength of your arguments and the clarity of your explanations.

Most importantly please be respectful and courteous to your opponents at all times during the round. Failure to do so will result in a docking of Speaker points and potential loss of the round.

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. We are all here to learn and have fun!

James Wang Paradigm

I am a parent judge. Although I am new to judging, I have listened to and observed PF debates a number of times.

In a PF debate I look for the following:

1. Compelling and logical arguments. This means that you should explain why something occurs and why it matters in the context of the round.

2. Fact-based data and evidence.

3. Clear delivery at a reasonable pace. (i.e. speaking loudly and fast won't necessarily be convincing)

4. You should have a clear narrative throughout the round.

Time yourselves.

Emma Wang Paradigm

I am a parent judge who is in the second year of judging. I like students who design their case in a well structured framework and are able to lay out evidences and arguments cohesively to convince the judges. I prefer students speak clearly and engage with the judges and audience in a professional manner in stead of just reading from notes. I don't prefer students not giving opponents turn to speak. Overall, students shall be firm, eloquent, and polite.I prefer students standup while speaking and during cross-fire. Students can sit during grand cross fire. Both sides shall do their time tracking.

Mark Wasserberger Paradigm

8 rounds

Never judged before, be slow and logical. Make clear arguments and ensure that I can follow your logic. I'm knowledgeable about the topic so if you try to pull anything sneaky with regards to facts or sources I'll know and it'll cost you. I am also a lay judge so I don't really know PF jargon and will be judging your arguments themselves

Devon Weis Paradigm

I’m a tabula rasa judge with a heavy commitment to nonintervention. (This means I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe they're relevant to the RFD)

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.

Cards are cool but don't overload your extensions w/ card tags b/c I often miss them when I'm flowing and I'll have no clue what you're talking about.

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants money-mouth)

I don’t require defense in either summary, although it usually makes sense to extend in 2nd summ. With that being said, if your opponents frontline case in 2nd rebuttal, you need to answer back their frontlines in 1st summary if you still wanna go for that defense. Once you know what your opponents are going for in 1st summary, it's probably also a pretty good idea to extend defense to that argument in 2nd summ. Defense is most important for me in Final Focus though, so if you want me to delink/NU the offense they're going for, say it in FF.

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time if I don’t know when you’ve moved from one arg to another.

I have a pretty high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes.

I love me some good framework.

I may look like I’m timing stuff, but I just like to watch the clock run. Track each other’s prep.

Theory is fine, but make it PF. Sometimes works okay in rounds, but please don't read a shell in front of me. Won’t intervene, but pls don’t try to meme w/ theory, it's meant to check back legitimate abuse claims in debate rounds.

I will vote for kritikal args if you win/extend role of the ballot :-)

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Sam Weitzman Paradigm

Personal Background

I competed in public forum debate for four years (2010–2014) on both the local and national circuits. I was fairly successful. I graduated from college in 2018, and I am now pursuing a law degree.

Judging Preferences

While PF has changed somewhat as an event since I competed, I believe that what made a good debater then is what makes a good debater now: one must be civil, clear, and convincing. Evidence without logic and logic without evidence are equally uncompelling. Of particular importance is having an effective weighing mechanism with which to frame the round. Otherwise, you force me to weigh what I think is most important (which is not the point of this event). I do flow, but I cannot handle spreading; if I do not understand what you are saying, I will be unable to credit you for having said it.

If you have any questions for me or want feedback following a round, I am happy to help (so long as it complies with all tournament rules and requirements).

Susan Wilkinson Paradigm

A few of my preferences:

1) Speakers are respectful throughout the round, and if you are rude and impolite I will deduct speaker points. Debate is supposed to fun, so don't make it an unpleasurable experience for any of us.

2) Speakers must speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand what you are saying then I can't factor it into my decision making.

3) During rebuttal, I prefer that you have mainly logical responses to your opponents' case. That doesn't mean you can't have cards to prove why your opponents' case is wrong but don't just read a card dump. Cards are futile to me if you don't explain why/how they're true. Reading a card alone as a response without any logical analysis does nothing to alter my view.

3) Please Please Please weigh, I cannot reiterate this enough. In fact, I want you to clearly prove to me in the second half of the round why you won. Organize your arguments in a way that makes it easy for me to choose the winner.

4) If you want me to take note of something during crossfire, please inform me.

5) Do not feel inclined to shake my hand

6) Keep track of your own time and your opponents'

7) I am a lay judge

ALI YUSAF Paradigm

ALI YUSAF - PARADIGM

I am a parent judge. I am a parent to 2 debaters who debate PF as well as other formats. I have been a trial attorney for over 20 years.

Speed

If I cannot understand you, then I cannot flow your argument.

Crossfire

Please do not be rude or condescending. Don’t yell or talk over other debaters during crossfire.

I enjoy listening to a good crossfire round. Use crossfire to clarify positions and to set up arguments in subsequent speeches.

Evidence

I often ask to see cards. You should be prepared to present the full text of whatever source you are citing with full name of author, qualifications, name of publication and date.

If I miss the name of a card, I may ask "do you have evidence that says..." Please provide the card or tell me why no card is necessary.

Finally, don't misconstrue evidence. The source should say what you say it says.

Timing

You are all adults. You flip a coin, pick sides, etc. You should also time yourselves. Please use a timer with an audible alarm that goes off when time expires. Don’t steal prep time.

Impact

Magnitude and scope are important, but also tell me why the outcome you describe is more likely or more probable than that of your opponent.

Some personal preferences

1. I like off-time roadmapping;

2. I like labels like “observations” and “contention”, etc.

3. I like sign posting; I like framework;

4. Tell me what to vote on and why I should vote for you.

5. Stay on topic. K's and Theory arguments are not preferred.

6. Public Forum is meant to be accessible to the public. Keep jargon at a minimum.

Have fun!

Diana Yao Paradigm

I am a new judge and I have never judged Public Forum Debate before. I am a non-native speaker so I would appreciate if the debaters can speak a little bit more slowly and clearly.

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I expect direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot. I expect all teams to use effective evidence.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Victor Yu Paradigm

Debated for four years at North Allegheny. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Extending:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Please signpost when extending cards, I might miss something or consider it to just be analysis if you don't do this.

- You can extend stuff very quickly with little explanation if it is clearly conceded

Weighing:

- If your weighing isn’t comparative then it probably won’t help you.

- If you don't win your argument then you can't access any weighing on it. Sometimes I believe it is strategic to spend more time in final focus making sure you are winning your argument and disproving your opponent's argument than doing simple weighing like magnitude, I can tell which impact is bigger if it really comes down to that.

- I'm not a fan of new weighing in second final focus, I'll still evaluate it but not too heavily.

Evidence:

- I'll always call for a card if it is contested and you tell me to

- Even if it not contested, I rarely will call for evidence that seems sketchy or is key to my decision

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

Kelly Zheng Paradigm

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook or ask me before the round.

General Stuff:

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal because I find them to be abusive

- If you're speaking second, I think you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary a little abusive

- Be nice to your opponents!!! I cannot stand people who are rude, cocky, obnoxious, etc. in round. I will tank your speaks if you are rude

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever you're the most comfortable with

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. If you don't feel comfortable asking in front of your opponents, feel free to message me before the round or come up to me privately.

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be in first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, try to pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you.

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision. If you have poor evidence ethics, depending on how bad they are, either your speaks will be hit or disqualification is possible.

Creative (?) Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round, explain your argument well and I will try to evaluate it the best I can. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary. This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K. These arguments just need to be run in a way that I can understand.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. The threshold for me dropping you is pretty high so please never make me do this.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

suhail younus Paradigm

8 rounds

Hey, I did four years of debate in high school, so I would say I'm not a lay judge. I go off of the flow. Don't just use statistics; explain what the stats mean and how they’re relevant to the debate. I like it when each speech responds to arguments made by the opposing side. Don't just ignore what your opponent has to say. Id rather, you argue what your opponent says rather than just getting in all of your points. Speak clearly, don't talk too fast; otherwise, I won’t be able to follow along to the best of my abilities. I will be voting off the flow.