In LD, Value/Criterion clash is my most heavily weighed criteria that I judge. Value and criterion should link together well within a case. All contentions should be brought back to value and criterion.

More generally, I use a case's analytical and empirical evidence to weigh impacts of ideas (impacts also weigh in my decision for rounds). Rate of speech delivery does not heavily weigh in my decision, but fluency, volume, and enunciation are factors. Voting issues should be given during final speeches, if given at all. Debate jargon should be kept to a minimum. I take notes during rounds - a mixture of flowing and notes to myself.

This is a value debate. Your value and criterion should be front and center in both your case as well as your rebuttals. Tell me why your value and criterion better uphold your side as well as your opponent’s.

No spreading.

Voters at the end of your final speech please.

No off-time roadmaps..

No grace period.

Name: Adriana Garcia

School Affiliation: DSST Byers High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 3

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? PF, CX, LD, OO, INFO, IX, USX, POI

What is your current occupation?

Science Teacher, Speech and Debate Coach

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

Speed of Delivery: I am okay with students who speak quickly but please keep it understandable.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): No preference

Role of the Final Focus: The role of the final focus is to go over voters and/or impact calcs.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Please do, I am okay with them into any speech but make sure in the summary and the final focus make sure you are still completing your job.

Topicality: Not in PF

Plans: Not in PF

Kritiks: Not in PF

Flowing/note-taking: Yes but I don't vote straight from the flow. I will use the flow to inform how I vote but the arguments must make sense.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument is a little more than style but they are pretty equal.

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, any arguments that are being considered and valued need to be extended as much as possible

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? Anything key to the case should be covered.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Arguments in cross are considered but not new arguments in final focus.

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 prefer a traditionally PF, please keep in mind that PF is suppose to be an every mans debate. Keep the content simplified and do not run technical arguments or theory.

 

In CX my biggest pet peeve is when evidence exchange is too long, please exchange evidence quickly and efficiently. Don't milk the time, send it ASAP and if you need to fix something take prep.

I care about:

Clash, frameworks, telling a logical story, warrants.

I often vote on:

Dropped arguments, outweighing the other side

I demand that debaters:

Give voters in the final focus, go down the flow and address all arguments, be civil, be understandable (If I don't understand an argument, you will lose.)

I do not vote on (unless I have to):

Theory or Kritiks

My background:

I did CX in college and was a national champion. I understand your K's and Theory, it just doesn't belong here. I have been a primarily PF coach since 2012.

I can't get to sleep
I think about the implications
Of diving in too deep
And possibly the complications Especially at night
I worry over situations
I know will be alright
Perhaps it's just imagination Day after day it reappears
Night after night my heartbeat shows the fear
Ghosts appear and fade away Alone between the sheets
Only brings exasperation
It's time to walk the streets
Smell the desperation At least there's pretty lights
And though there's little variation
It nullifies the night
From overkill Day after day it reappears
Night after night my heartbeat shows the fear
Ghosts appear and fade away
Come back another day I can't get to sleep
I think about the implications
Of diving in too deep
And possibly the complications Especially at night
I worry over situations that
I know will be alright
It's just overkill Day after day it reappears
Night after night my heartbeat shows the fear
Ghosts appear and fade away
Ghosts appear and fade away
Ghosts appear and fade away

Your arguments have to make sense. If you think your argument is stronger, show me why. Show me why your evidence or logic is better don't just tell me it is. I don't want two ships passing in the night. I want well organized clash. You have to flow drops. If your opponent drops and you don't flow and point it out, I won't consider it. You need to manage and extend arguments effectively throughout the debate. Don't drop an argument early and then try to extend it later. Ethics are important. Communication is very important. Especially in a digital debate. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I'm fine with speed if all competitors in the round are fine with speed. I don't vote on plans/counterplans in PF. All other argumentation is up to you.

If there is an email chain, please include me in the chain.

rpjohn14@asu.edu

steve.larue@frontrange.edu

I judge regularly in Colorado, usually around 60-70 debate rounds a year, somewhat less this year. I've judged at Nationals for many years.  I've coached debate as an assistant for about 20 years.  What surprised me most in reading other paradigms is how much the PF paradigms sound like Policy paradigms.

I will be looking for:

Being on the e-mail chain.

Tab judging philosophy -- teams set the framework, and it's a debatable issue.

Weighing the round -- teams can collapse if they strategically decide to do so, depending on how the round is playing out.

Speed is not a problem. Clarity is better.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences – you should do whatever you do best – but if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each others’ interpretations--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate the standards debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Kritikal Debate – I like kritikal debate, but I think it’s much more persuasive when it interacts with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards – or reasons to prefer – as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means I think that comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative. Also, it’ll be a lot easier for me to vote negative if there’s in-round abuse.

Theory – It’s easier for me to evaluate theory debates when one actually happens, which means engaging the other team's arguments and not just reading blocks and talking past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Non-Traditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean, but try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask.

Judge Paradigm for Jeff Pope

I would describe myself as a policymaker. I also enjoy good in-depth topicality debates..But I am open to all arguments, including Kritiks. Although I have a higher threshold for voting critical arguments, including a requirement for the neg to read an alternative. Speed is fine, provided you are clear. Theory is also fine, but to win on theory requires that you do work to explain the impacts.

I also expect competitors to display good sportsmanship. Rudeness will impact speaker points.

If anyone has specific questions, please let me know.

I'm new to Public Forum judging, but a seasoned speech judge. Clear and well-paced delivery will help me listen to your arguments and track the flow better. You have prepared for the debate and familiar with the topic, I'm not. Please be sure to explain terms you think might be new to a lay person, so we are on the same page. I keep personal beliefs and opinions out of judging. Logical reasoning, evidence and a civil debate gets my vote.

I will leave it up to you to keep your time in all debate events.

Flashing isn’t including in prep time.

Slow down or you’ll lose. Spreading is a fun trick, but I want to hear your argument.

Be prepared to share your cards. I might ask for sources at the end!

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

PF Specific Updates:

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

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

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

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

Policy Specific Paradigm:

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

I am a tabula rasa judge, meaning I will judge based almost exclusively on what you debate. If the entire round is fought on definitions, that’s what I will judge on, same with anything else that might be debated. Therefore, it is important to me to be given voters at the end clearly explaining why you believe you won the round.

My only pet peeve is for during Cross-fire. CX is a time for questions, not statements.This includes questions disguised as statements, including "are you aware-", "would you agree-", etc...

I have been a Speech and Debate coach for 15 years with multiple State champions and National elim rounds. I also teach classes for students for both elite competitors and novices. I have judged virtually every form of debate including CX, PF, LD, WS, and BQ, however, my main emphasis is on the Speech and Interp side. While I can handle speed, I prefer debaters that emphasize organization and clearly outlined arguments with strong analysis skills. Debate is a communication event. If I can't understand you or you don't make your arguments clearly with good evidence, I will not be voting for you.

I am a judge who willingly judges PF, LD, and World Schools debate. I competed in Policy debate many years ago in both high school and college, finishing third in the nation in CEDA debate when that event was still popular. As a coach, I have moved away from Policy debate with it's emphasis on speed and evidence wars over well-reasoned arguments. This affects my view of other debate events as I am quite completely opposed to the infusion of policy debate techniques, such as critiques, into other forms of debate. I do recognize that Public Forum is often fast and evidence heavy and I have no concerns with either the speed or the amount evidence as long as it supports credible arguments. In LD, I am more of a tradionalist who expects value clash and strong case argumentation at a reasonable speed. I enjoy World Schools precisely because this style of debate also places a premium on organization, argumentation, and rhetoric.

As a critic, I am stricly Tabula Rasa when it comes to the arguments themselves; meaning I will only consider arguments the debaters make in round and will not interject my own philosophical or policy paradigms into a round. I am a flow judge who decides votes in favor of the debater(s) who do the best job on convincing me that their arguments should carry the round based on the relative strength of their evidence, reasoning, and argumentation. I NEVER award low point wins. If you didn't do the better job while debating, you will not win my ballot.

Three notes are worth mentioning on procedure. Most importantly, I am entirely opposed to the tendency of some TOC judges to dictate PF strategy by declaring frontlining and other optional techniques as requirements to earn their vote. There are other ways to structure your approach to the round and I encourage students to debate the style that best suits them! Second, I only allow evidence requests during CX/Crossfire. Evidence requests made during prep time will be discouraged. Third, please remember to be polite and try not talk over one another during Crossfire. All speakers deserve a chance to be heard.

Paradigms:

Please do not talk over your competitor in CX.

Evidence must be clearly and correctly cited.

NO SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If i interrupt you and you are going too fast, it won't be good for your side.

Please completely sing-post your contentions, sub contentions your CORE VALUE, VALUE CRITERION