NSDA Middle School Nationals
2019 — Dallas, TX/US
*Noor *Abdallah Paradigm
I am a junior at Columbus High and a third year PF debater. I debate on both the local GA and national circuits.
1. On a scale 1-10 (ten being the worst type of spreading), I can typically handle around an 8 in varsity round. I personally speak fast in debate, so I can typically handle speed when flowing. With that said, if you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to. An easy way to ensure you are doing this is to warrant your responses.
2. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately.
3. Be assertive, not rude.
1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. Please please please weigh. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like me and you will trash talk me after round. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.
2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands.
3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :)
4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.
5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format. Just again, please signpost and weigh.
6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.
7. Crossfire does not affect my decision. I will not flow it, but I will listen.
1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.
2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!
1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round.
2. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.
3. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond.
1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and be available almost immediately within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.
2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks.
Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me! Remember debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.
Good Luck :)
*Aidan *Anderson Paradigm
I am a 4th year debater at Columbus High School (GA) and have competed on the local and national circuits with moderate success.
Speak Slowly |------------------------------------X----| I can flow anything IF you're clear
Feelings |-------------------------------------X---| Dead inside
Naturally Grumpy |-------------------------------------X---| Grumpy face is your fault
Longer Ev |------------X----------------------------| More Ev
Analytics |-------------X---------------------------| Evidence
Only Logic |-------------------------------X--------| Evidence Heavy
Structure is Imp. | -------------------------------------X--| IDC if understandable
Truth |--------------------------------------X-| Tech
Serious |--------------------------------------X-| Witt Galore
Intervention |--------------------------------------X-| Tabula Rasa
Card Dump |---------------------------------------------X------| Engage with warrants
IDC |---------------------------------------------------------X---| No Offensive Overviews
IDC |----------------------------------------------------------X--| Cover 1st Rebuttal Turns
IDC |--------------------------------------------X----| Extend Defense
New Ev. |--------------------------------------X----------| Hell Na
Voters | ----------------------------X--------------------| Line by Line
Give a bad FF |-----------------------------------------------X-| WEIGH EVERYTHING
CX about impacts |---------------------------------------X-----| CX about links and solvency
Tune out of CX |-------------------------X-------------------| I flow CX
Be strategic, funny, and not abusive and you'll get ballin speaks.
If you have any questions or don't understand how to interpret this paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.
I DO disclose and give feedback.
If you have any questions contact me on Facebook messenger or email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
*Mariah *Cady Paradigm
I debated at Columbus High School for four years doing PF on both the local GA and national circuits.
1. I can handle speed when flowing. If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to. An easy way to ensure you are doing this is to warrant your responses.
2. I appreciate puns in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach.
3. Be assertive, not rude.
1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. Weighing can start as early as rebuttal!
2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands.
3. Signposting is extremely helpful :)
4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.
5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format. Just again, please signpost.
6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF).
7. Crossfire does not affect my decision. I will not flow it.
1. I think we're all adjusting to the 3 minute summary; for now, this is where I stand: all offensive extensions and extensions of defense should be in first summary if the second rebuttal frontlined what they're extending in summary. If the second rebuttal did not frontline, then that categorization only extends to offensive extensions (overviews, turns).
1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round (see 1st speaking team above).
2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond.
1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and be available almost immediately within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.
2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you.
Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me! :)
*Julia *Holmes Paradigm
Pretty much debate how you want but here's a few ways to win on my ballot.
1. Collapse in summary and weigh in final focus. Please don't extend nine or ten pieces of offense and expect me to vote on all of them! Extend what you think is most important. Write my ballot for me in terms of weighing :)
2. I don't require defense in first summary, but it's probably strategic.
3. If you're speaking second (and this is kind of obvious), you MUST answer turns/all offense and large offensive overviews. I'm not afraid to vote on them.
4. PLEASE time yourselves. I will time you but I don't always remember so PLEASE PLEASE keep time.
5. PLEASE don't spend a lot of time on a framework/value premise debate. This is PF, not LD, so framework is usually useless. If you're going to have a framework debate, at least tie it into a weighing mechanism.
6. don't keep your opponents prep time please its annoying!
A few general things:
- I will vote on evidence ethics. In other words, if you cannot produce a card/the card is miscut (and I'm not afraid to call for cards myself, sorry), I'll drop the card and your speaks. If that's your only link you've extended, sorry. Basically, just look at Jeff Miller's paradigm for evidence ethics.
*Christian *Rhoades Paradigm
I've been debating for 3 years in PF, and I will be a senior at Vestavia Hills High School in Alabama next year. Please signpost in rebuttal. In summary, interact with your opponent's case, weigh, and collapse. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD don't extend your entire case. I want to see frontlines in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. You should be able to write my ballot for me. I will time you but time yourself because I might forget or my phone might die. I don’t flow cross. Be ready with pre-flows and anything else you need BEFORE THE ROUND please. If you have any other questions don't be afraid to ask me!
*Abby *Ronson Paradigm
I recently graduated from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL. I debated at Vestavia in public forum for 4 years. I went to camp and competed locally and nationally and I was decent. I’m very flow. I am now a freshman at Auburn University WDE !!!
Here's my actual paradigm:
1. Weigh weigh weigh weigh
2. If you have claim then impact without warrants and link in between you do not in fact have an impact
3. If your evidence is miscut/power tagged/wrong the highest speaks I’ll give you is 25.
4. Time yourselves
5. I don’t require defense extension in first summary, only offense is required
6. If both teams agree to skip grand before the round, I’ll give everyone in the round 2 extra speaks
7. Collapse!!!! If you find yourself going for every argument in summary, you're doing this wrong. Everything in FF must also be in summary
8. DO NOT KEEP THE OTHER TEAM’S PREP I WILL DOC YOUR SPEAKS BECAUSE THAT IS RUDE
9. Roadmaps are always welcome
10. War Eagle
11. I’m good with speed but don’t spread PF is not the place for that lol
12. Framework debate is so boring plz don’t
13. If you're flight two, go ahead and flip before the round, that way I have more time to give you feedback at the end
14. I don't require disclosure but I do appreciate it so you can add me to the e-mail chain if you feel so inclined
15. If your evidence is shady I will probably call for it. If I do call for evidence, cut card/website are both fine, but a paraphrased version of said evidence is not fine.
16. A 3 minute summary does not give you permission to go for all 800 arguments in the round. Spend more time weighing if you need to fill the time. Please continue to condense the round.
If the tournament doesn’t allow disclosure or if we’re running late and I don’t get to disclose/give feedback, feel free to post round me via e-mail or in person. Have fun y’all I love his activity don’t make me hate it after your round !
*Cole *Stacey Paradigm
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
TIME TO DELIVER A PIZZA BALL
Erin AlFord Paradigm
Lillian Albrecht Paradigm
Ashlie Anderson Paradigm
Evelyn Arceo Paradigm
William Bannister Paradigm
I Default to Tabula Rosa:
I love to see theory debate around framing and arguments revolving around my duty as a judge and I think that burden debate is extremely important. However, if these things don't take place then Ill implement my own value criteria when I consider your impact calc. Unless you tell me otherwise I think that comparatively advantageous is a reasonable standard.
Tech VS Truth - How it affects my evaluation of the flow:
I don't appreciate the weaponization of spread and the over-evaluation of cards that are inherently trash. However, it is important that you clearly state if you are kicking out of arguments otherwise you are at the mercy of me blatantly accepting the tech of you dropping argument no matter the truth of what a team brings up against your dropped argument. Manage your flow, but focus on the flow being a sign that you are clashing on evidence, not splattering cheep recut cards hoping that a team makes a tech error that causes them to lose the round.
I'm a strong believer that solvency determines the weight I give to you (SOLVING) for the impacts you bring up during the round. Unless it's fairly convincing I generally don't believe solvency take outs.
UNLESS YALL DEBATING A BILL THAT'S BEEN PASSED, then I generally find inherency a waste of time. AFF if someone gets you on inherency that's pretty bad.
DA = Good, DA that runs into a larger narrative about why the AFF is bad = Major brownie points. Important notes: your link chain should tell me a story that you can explain when pushed on. If you can't explain your link chain in cross-X then it's going to take a major tech mess up from the other team for you to get anything on the DA. Also really protect that link on the DA if your the NEG because otherwise, the aff is going to swat that DA away with ease.
Counter-plans are good if it is modifying existing policy all the better, I think CPs are at the heart of policy debate. But if you run, RCP, Delay CP, then your wasting valuable speech time.
Our Komrade the K +++
I think kritical debate that around the heart of the topic is awesome so that being said linkage isn't very important to me on the K as long as you can establish a narrative between the case and the K. I think that everyone should experiment with the K during their debate experience. I prefer functionality in an alt, that doesn't nessisarly mean solving for the impact completely, but rather creating change which is comparatively advantageous with the status quo. We ain't gonna hollow out capitalist structures by being big brains.
This being said... I don't vote on the K in the round if it is used because.
-The opposing team belongs to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group
-The excuse for you being a well-developed source on the K is because you belong to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group. If you are then that's great and I am proud of you for finding advocacy, but it doesn't replace a well-rounded knowledge of lit.
Good test the competitiveness in multiple ways. Multiple perms are good. That being said don't run nine perms hoping another team drops one because that's not real debate and I won't vote on that.
Double Binds ++++++
LOVE a good double bind, combines clever strategy and exemplifies both tech and truth simultaneously! However, if you just go up there and start throwing around the phrase every time the other team makes a contradiction then I won't take you seriously.
If its needed do it, if it's not, don't waste our time (although double blinds between a link and T are accepted strategies)
I think that theory is an important part of a debate.
I refuse to treat spec like topicality its not a voter issue. I do think it plays into solvency and it can be used to establish links.
Other things about myself:
R.E.S.P.E.C.T your opponents and teammates. Please try your hardest to use their correct pronouns, I will try my hardest as well, we are all imperfect, we all make mistakes, but have integrity.
Pronouns - it no way affects what you call me what you want.
If you want to bash religious institutions go ahead, if you want to question the truth behind an entire system of belief go ahead. If you think religion is inherently immoral and its the opioid of the masses then lay it all out, I will vote for it. But I will not tolerate being xenophobic in your classification of a religious group. Anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia are not cool. Making offhand comments about the character of a religious group is not cool.
If you want to debate eastern vs western values and make it clear that it's not about race or religion then that's chill. (I.E. Western liberalism V Eastern authoritarian models = Good | "Judeo-Christian dominance" V "Cino Supremacy" = VERY BAD)
Anu Bhave Paradigm
Kelsey Birnholz Paradigm
Trevor Blow Paradigm
I am a parent judge, who has some experience judging public forum rounds. I like a few things in a speaker.
For the First Speaker:
When presenting your case to me, I would like you to speak clearly and slowly. If you start speaking too fast, I'll stop flowing. Make sure that you're emphasizing what contention you're on and organize your case by subpoints, making it easier for me to flow your case.
For the Second Speaker:
When you are rebutting your opponent's case, make sure that you tell me what on their case you are responding to, and I would prefer you to go down the flow. If you do something else, tell me in an off time roadmap. Also, clash is very important in a round so I would like to see a lot of it from you.
During your final focus, I would like to hear Impact calc and why you win the round. Your impacts should be resolutional. Also tell me the reasons why you should win.
I want you to be respectful to your opponent. I don't care about where you're facing, either me or your opponent. During Grand CX, teams can either stand up or sit down.
Abby Bonat Paradigm
Hosea Born Paradigm
Neosho '14, UARK '18, HSU '20
Coach: Yerger Middle School, Hope
I debated CX in MO on a traditional circuit, hence I end up judging Public Forum and Student Congress more than anything else. In any event I judge, I look for quality over quantity in arguments. Don't just read cards, be able to explain how the evidence supports your position. Use common sense, analysis, and solid logic. I don't mind spreading as long as it is clear and the arguments are good. You'll rarely win the flow if your response is just that you have a more recent source of evidence, tell me what your evidence proves over your opponent. I'll disclose if both teams agree that it is okay. Ask if you have any questions, I am usually more than happy to answer questions about the round after it is over. As always, take my comments as you wish and listen to your coach.
StuCo- Definitely qualify your sources and embody the delegate you are supposed to be. IMO there is no place for spreading in StuCo, I believe that it is quality focused form of debate in both argumentation and persuasion which means your logic has to be sound and you need to show persuasive qualities in your style. Don't abuse personal privileges, only use in emergencies or double entered. Be active in questioning and attentive through the session. Decorum definitely plays into my perception of you as a delegate when ranking. PO is ranked based on order of the session and not showing bias towards any other delegate.
PF: My pet peeve in PF are roadmaps. There is one flow. Unless it gets wild, don't waste time telling me you are going to cover your opponents points then rebuild your case. Go with quality over quantity and don't drop key points or try bringing up new arguments after GCF. I will roll with the flow of the round. If you bring up framework or burdens make sure you know what you are talking about and don't get trapped in just debating the framework. Default burden is pro must prove the resolution brings about an advantage not seen in SQUO, con must show that the squo is better than affirming the resolution. Default framework is cost/ben analysis. Speed is okay as long as you are clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it. If you have questions ask me before the round starts.
CX: I doubt you'll get me judging this that much, though I prefer the traditional style with case debate and disads/T/CP. Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Go with your normal style in the round, just make any off case arguments specific to the aff, if there is not a strong link you will lose the impact.
World Schools: This is a fairly new field that I am judging. Refer to PF paradigm for stylistics/defaults and if you have any specific questions ask before the start of the round. Default to quality debate and argumentation, have solid logic and watch your fallacies. Do not make the entire debate into a definition debate, too many times I have sat through a debate about the definition of "this house" and it doesn't even matter to the debate. Don't get caught in that trap.
Jason Brezina Paradigm
Though I've been a PF middle school coach for four years, I consider myself a novice/lay-type judge. I do flow so I appreciate clear signposts, warrants and unique and impactful evidence. I am very much interested to see speakers attempt or execute innovation in form and style using humor, pathos and engaging impacts. I believe speakers who believe what they're arguing. I frown upon speaker dispositions that are communicated in a seemingly unfriendly, impatient or unkind manner.
Anthony Brown Paradigm
Mary Burke Paradigm
John Butrus Paradigm
PF: I really don’t care what you do, just make sure it all makes sense. If you have a weird argument, but the link is good, then I’ll consider it. Only thing I hate is if you’re rude to your opponent. If you yell at them in cross, or berate them, insult them as a person or anything like that, I will almost certainly vote you down. Just be nice.
Anthony Catale Paradigm
Monique Cauley Paradigm
Natalle Cawston Paradigm
I started doing debate my sophomore year, and have since competed in both congressional debate and public forum. My paradigm is pretty straightforward: I care much more about the validity of your argument than your presentation. On that note, you will not persuade me to your side by creating false links, or using logical fallacies.
I appreciate a lot of clash, and I enjoy when debaters are able to adapt to an argument they weren't expecting with ease.
Ultimately, the winner of the round will win on both flow, and quality of arguments.
Nilesh Chander Paradigm
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
- 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
- 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
- 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 probability or magnitude, I can tell which impact is bigger if it really comes down to that.
- With that said, I am a big fan of more advanced forms of weighing like strength of link or clarity of impact, so expect higher speaks if you can utilize those effectively.
- I'm not a big fan of new weighing in second final focus, I'll still evaluate it but not too heavily.
- I'll call for a card if it is contested and you tell me to
- Even if it not contested, I still might call for evidence that is key to my decision because I do not want to vote on something that is misconstrued
- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer if you didn't spread
- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed
- 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 you a 30. (N/A for NDF)
- Unique arguments are cool if they are explained well
- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm
- Reading cards > paraphrasing
- No handshakes
- TKO rule is in play unless you’re debating novices. (N/A for NDF)
- Please preflow before the round
Robert Chen Paradigm
----------- UPDATE FOR NATIONALS 2019 -----------
If I am judging you for PF, ignore this update.
If I am judging you for LD, note that I have significantly less experience with LD than PF, although I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. Make sure you properly warrant your arguments and please ask me any questions you may have even if I address it below this update.
I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.
- I evaluate arguments on the flow.
- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.
- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.
- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.
- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech!
- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.
- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.
- First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.
- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.
- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and never fully resolve it (3) I'm curious and want to read it.
- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate
- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a warning/disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments (this applies to non-progressive arguments as well).
- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.
- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round!
- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would strongly advise issuing atrigger warning beforehand. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.
- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take less than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate any longer while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."
- I don't care if you have WiFi on, as long as you're not communicating with anyone outside of the round. Feel free to download a PDF or look something up on Google – whatever makes for a better/fairer debate. The exception to this rule is if certain tournaments have very explicit rules prohibiting internet access (e.g. NCFLs).
- Be nice to each other!
Brandon Chen Paradigm
I am a flow judge, and will base my decision only on your argumentation; therefore, I don't care about your voice, delivery, attire. What I do care about and will judge on is your rebuttals. Don't drop opponent's offensive arguments in your rebuttals, and make sure you clash, compare, and analyze why you win.
I love Ks, so bring it all on!! You can also spread, as I have debated policy since grade 6 to 12, and thus welcome speed for so long as you are clear. I have also debated in PF, Parli, and IPPF events from grade 10 - 12. Since grade 9, I have competed in more than 30 major tournaments both locally and in the U.S., and I have judged in over 30 tournaments.
Lately, I have found out giving back to the debate community what I have learned through coaching younger kids are very rewarding for me.
I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.
Siobhan Connolly Paradigm
I coach beginners and novice students at Ivy Bridge Academy.
I'm not too strict on things. You'll win because you had the better case and presented it better, not because of some technicality. I don't care if you speak quickly, but don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of getting every little thing in. I'm not super into paraphrasing, but it's acceptable as long as you can provide a card upon request.
Love K's/ theory/ philosophical arguments. It should link to the topic, obviously, but the weirder the better in my book.
I enjoy heated crossfires, so feel free to be aggressive.
In the summary, respond to your opponent's response speech. Try and extend, but you're not going to automatically lose if you don't. For the second summary, it will only help you to respond to your opponent's summary, but if you don't that doesn't mean you'll lose.
I'll flow the debate, but I focus more on the big picture rather than minute details. Winners generally know their case inside and out and deliver it better.
I'll time your speeches and crossfires, but I probably won't time prep so be sure to keep up with it yourself
Ethan D'Alessandro Paradigm
My email is: email@example.com please add me to the email chain
I go to ICW and have debated there for 3 years
Currently a 2A but was a 2N for fresh/soph years
Lot of experience with the topic
Not a good judge for high theory Ks or K affs
DA + Case or DA + CP are some good strats
Impact comparison makes my life easy
For my first 2 years of debate I was a 2N, I switched this year and am now a 2A
I am a junior at Iowa City West High School and have debated 3 years, have a lot of experience with the topic
I'm good for DAs, CPs, T, I'm less good with Ks
Probably don't run your 1 off baudrillard/bataille, I am not familiar with much K lit outside of Security, Agamben, Cap, Fem IR or more policy kritiks
Also probably don't run K affs in front of me, I will vote for them, but I am probably going to lean neg on topicality arguments/framework args and it will be an uphill battle for my ballot, however, I will try as hard as possible to be impartial when making the decision
DA + Case is what I went for all of freshman and sophomore year when I was a 2n so go for it if you want - I will be a good judge for it if you do it well
Probably most theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team (I can be convinced otherwise of course) except condo
Make my ballot easy - I don't want to have to sit in the back for 20 minutes trying to rework the whole debate, tell me where I should be looking, what to weigh first, make impact COMPARISON especially turns case or turns DA arguments will get you far
I'm 95% tech over truth, but don't read obviously offensive arguments (e.g. racist, sexist, homophobic etc.)
Finally, debate is a space to explore and run some fun, cool arguments, you do what you do best, and I will try my best to judge the debate fairly and impartially.
If you say nucUlar in round you get -30 speaker points (not really just a pet peeve)
Jennifer Dailey Paradigm
Jackson Day Paradigm
Credentials: I was a PFer throughout high school who dabbled in LD and CX. I'm a PF state champion and have competed at a handful of national tournaments, so I can keep up with most debate styles.
- I don't have a ton of specific preferences because debate should be something with a little room for variation.
- I'm okay with some speed but not if it means you're sacrificing analysis or gonna be unclear.
- I'm generally tech > truth, but don't give me too crazy of arguments unless the link is really strong.
- If you don't weigh the argument, I'm gonna get frustrated and you might not like how I vote. Make my decision easy for me.
- It's okay if you wanna not read defense in second rebuttal, but I would at least recommend it.
- Summary should primarily be spent responding to RB, and any of the responses that aren't made shouldn't be in Final Focus either. You can extend terminal defense, though.
- If this is a value debate, I expect your framework to be upheld or it's gonna be a lot harder to vote for you.
- I've only ever done traditional LD but I can follow the more progressive stuff as long as you're clear and know what you're doing.
Hyrum Devenport Paradigm
send speech docs to: firstname.lastname@example.org
for stalking to see if im a liberal or conservative: @devenporthyrum on twitter
- 3 years traditional PF, will flow any argument that makes sense.
- unless the flow is explicit and clear (which it never is), you need to write my ballot. impact calc it (or do the equivalent with the k or theory). tell me why, with the flow as it is, you win. explain why i vote for you, and i probably will.
- speaking crisply and quickly is good, spreading is satan. i don't understand, i don't flow.
- tech > truth. me imposing my worldview degrades the educational value of the round. but please have decent points.
- if i have to think, you're doing something wrong.
- if you don't provide a framework i default to impact calc with prioritization of human life.
- did PF for Salem Hills, LD as a novice.
- probably at college by the time anyone actually reads this, but who knows.
- i'll try to be tab, but I really like quantitative impacts & good speakers.
- if your case is stock you can win, but i love some fresh unique arguments.
- communication is key. if i dont understand it (spreading or complex crap) it doesnt go on the flow. if it's not on the flow, you lose.
- youre a high school student. i really dont care what you think. so you better have evidence.
- unless i ask for cards, don't offer them to me. but if there's a chance it's shady, address it in the speech.
- 99% of times ill vote off the flow. the other 1% is when one team is offensive to the point that I judge someone was hurt.
- i would love to drop teams off misconstruing stuff and theory, but can only do it if you bring it up.
- im not good at politics, but if you want to discuss stuff hmu.
- willing to discuss the round after round, though I will probably not remember what happened.
- focus on quantifiable impacts, not morals or deon, but dont be ridiculous. unless your nuke war link chain is gold, it's trash.
- CX is 3 min, and 3 min only. stop at the timer. 10 sec grace on speeches though.
- if 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, 2nd speaker doesn't either. kudos and speaks if you do, though.
- unless your voters are weird, you dont need a framework. CBA, impact calc, human lives, etc. is my default, don't waste time using it as a framework unless you're defending.
- if it's in FF, it better be in summary.
- in my opinion: value is why i care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value i am a lot less likely to vote for you.
- b/c i did PF, i inherently favor quantifiable impacts, so take care to explain why i care with morals/deon stuff.
- i would prefer a traditional format round, but if you have to kritik, feel free.
- literally what are LD's times? why can't they just have shorter policy or longer PF structure?
- no i do not understand what you are saying, which im not a fan of. do not say more in a speech than i can reasonably get onto the flow.
- i actually love the argumentation structure in policy, though. feel free to run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote for you it has to make sense.
25: horrible speaker. either you are infuriating to listen to, you lack confidence, or you did something offensive but not offensive enough to drop you off.
27: below average, but not horrid.
28: ever so slightly above average. makes sense, is clear, but doesn't invigorate me.
29: very strong. communicates well and in a way that sways me. you are enjoyable to listen to.
30: obama. excellent at communicating and extremely enjoyable to watch. go be POTUS, you snitch.
i will use decimals sometimes.
- i'll just try to be tab. i dont get congress.
- i did some theater, so my philosophy stems from there. too lazy to write it all down though. refer to speaks breakdown for approximate breakdown of performance.
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
Ashlyn Ellgass Paradigm
I vote off of structure, analytics, and impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Clash is very important, so highlight on that.
Make sure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right, just persuade me why I should care and vote for you.
Always give “voters”, or reasons as to why you think you won the debate, just provide reasonable points as to why along with them.
I’m great with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, just don’t go overboard to where you do too much that you can't keep up.
I have a background in both tradition and progressive LD, and PF is very common where I am from. If I am judging policy, I can keep up and understand the actions of the round, but I in no way enjoy being in a policy round.
Raafa Elsheikh Paradigm
Rahma Elsheikh Paradigm
Daniel Fernandez Paradigm
Daniel Fernandez Paradigm
I competed in Public Forum debate for seven years at the Institute for Collaborative Education and then at Poly Prep, both of which are located in New York. I would describe my debate style in high school as traditional; I spoke relatively slowly, liked to make big picture arguments, and to tell stories with my arguments. As a judge, I am open to any style of debate, but I prefer a traditional style.
Good luck, and don't forget to have fun! You can find specific preferences below.
I believe that more Public Forum teams should disclose – publish their arguments and evidence online. I will not penalize any team that does not disclose, but I will reward any team who does with a 1 point speaker boost – just let me know your stuff is on the wiki before the round starts. If you do disclose and then remove it from the wiki, I'll be very unhappy You can find the link to the wiki here, as well as a guide to putting your cases on the wiki here.
Weighing and argument comparison
On the topic of speaker points, I will reward – and be more easily persuaded to vote for – teams that put in the work weighing and comparing their arguments. Don't just make arguments and respond to your opponent's arguments; invest time to explain why the arguments you make matter more than the arguments your opponent makes. The earlier you start and the more often you bring up your weighing, the better!
One note on weighing: I would advise teams against saying that their arguments are more likely than their opponent's arguments because the strength of weighing comes from the ability to accept your opponent's argument as true and still win the debate by demonstrating why your own argument matters more. When you argue that your argument is more probable than your opponent's, you put the added burden on yourself to win their case because you need to win a reason why their argument is not true or improbable. You should always seek win win the debate by winning the fewest amount of arguments.
To borrow a line from the great judge Caspar Arbeeny, my threshold for responses goes up the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counterintuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.
Should 2nd speaking teams frontline? Should first speaking teams respond to their opponent's case in summary?
I do not have stringent rules about when teams should make arguments, but arguments will be more persuasive the more times you make them because they will stick better my head, and because you can flesh them out more easily. However, the final focus can only include offensive arguments – contentions, turns, disadvantages – made in the summary; the second final focus can also only include defensive arguments made in the summary.
Theoretical and critical arguments?
I am open to hearing progressive arguments, but I – most likely your opponents – have little, or no, experience with them, so I expect you to argue them well and in a way that everyone in the round can understand.
Charles Gagnon Paradigm
Mariela Garcia Paradigm
IF YOU EVER NEED PRIVATE COACHING, I CAN HELP. CONTACT ME AT email@example.com FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*
General Information About Me
My Experience in Debate:
- I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
- I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.
My Educational Experience:
- I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.
My Debate Motto:
- EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.
My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:
All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.
Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.
I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.
LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take.
Therefore, specificity is key. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.
Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:
Clarity & Speed:
I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.
Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.
Road Map & Sign Posts:
This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:
- AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
- NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)
As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.
- SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations (say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
- CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.
*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*
My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:
As A Team
I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:
1. Which team was more persuasive?
2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claims with evidence?
3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?
4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)
Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.
*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*
General Notes about my judging preferences:
I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!
Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike
Emily Geiss Paradigm
Lystra Gift Paradigm
Matthew Goodbred Paradigm
I debated for Ravenwood for 4 years, and was moderately successful on the national circuit. Just make sure you're extending all the offense and defense you want to go for in both summary and final focus, second rebuttal should respond to offense in the first rebuttal, weigh, and Be Nice. Most importantly, SAY A LOT OF MEANINGLESS STUFF.
Debate is a game! Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions not answered in the paradigm.
+1 speaker point if you make a bird call and incorporate it into the speech.
Harrison Hamric Paradigm
Mary Hanna Paradigm
William Hays Paradigm
I have competed in Public Forum for my entire high school career so far. I will keep a clean flow of the round and not use my outside biases to judge the round. However, I do have a few preferences:
1) Keep your own time. I will not time you.
2) Make sure you’re clear in your speaking. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow what you’re saying.
3) Make sure to extend and warrant throughout the round. Even if your opponent doesn’t respond to a card, it’s still helpful to extend and explain it if you truly want me to remember it.
4) Clear impacts and how you’re winning on them makes it easier for me to both contextualize the topic in the world and why I should vote for you. Make sure to do this throughout.
4) Avoid getting into debates about the quality of each other’s evidence. If it is vital to the round, I will look at the evidence in question, but I generally tend to prefer the team with the best analysis.
5) I usually won't pay attention to crossfire. If you want me to remember something from it, bring it up in your next speech.
6) PLEASE DO NOT SHAKE MY HAND.
Otherwise, have fun and do your best. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in round.
Callan Hazeldine Paradigm
I did 4 years of Public Forum at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, NC.
I have some general expectations for round:
1.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/explanation/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).
2.) First summary should extend defense now that there is an extra minute. My philosophy of the 3 min summary is that you should go for the same content but with more explanation and depth, however some rounds may require new arguments to be introduced in first summary for example. Also Frontline turns at least in second rebuttal, that'd be pretty cool.
3.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient.
4.) (Stolen from Danny Cigale/Daniel Fernandzez) 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 up the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.
5.) I can flow at any PF speed but most teams go faster than their actual threshold for speed and start to become less clear. I think that you shouldn't give up clarity for the sake of speed. I can be persuaded far more easily when the information I'm given is actually clear and not some PF kid trying to spread without knowing how to.
6.) Don't run theory for the sake of running theory. It seems disingenuous and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I was never the most technical debater in round and some theory/K debate may go beyond my own ability as a judge, but I do enjoy seeing it become more accepted and think it can be a great addition to the norms of our community. If you run theory/K do so with a purpose because many of these arguments deal with identity and issues larger than any given resolution and shouldn't be treated trivially. Ex.) Reading dates theory in 2nd rebuttal when it should've been read earlier and then dropping it.
7.) Chill out in round. No need to be overly aggressive and stuff, that doesn't really appeal to me. Especially in crossfire.
8.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).
I don't think anything here deviates too much from what could be expected as a "first year out" judge but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Don't forget to have fun in round!!
Sean Hicks Paradigm
Harrison Hitson Paradigm
I'm a rising Senior at Mountain Brook High School and have done Public Forum debate since I was in seventh grade so can understand what's going on and most of the technical terms. I'd say that I prefer a more traditional debate round but most importantly, be respectful and have fun.
My important preferences to keep in mind:
1: Be respectful of your opponents and please do not be rude in cross
2: I don't flow cross so if an important point was made, bring it up in your later speeches
3: I will assume a cost benefit analysis which is perfectly fine unless you tell me otherwise
4: Speed is ok but Public Forum should be accessible to anyone so be clear
5: I don't mind and even encourage teams to call for evidence from the other team but don't overdo it
6: I will keep time during the round but y'all should also. Be clear on when and how much prep you're using
7: Please extend arguments through all of your speeches. If you don't and your opponent calls you out I will have to drop the argument
8: Sign post where you are going with your speech so I know where to flow
9: I encourage off time roadmaps at the beginning of your speeches
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything in my paradigm or that I didn't address
Alex Holmes Paradigm
Michael Hornsby Paradigm
Jake Islas Paradigm
I am a 3rd-year public forum debate from Missouri. I can handle some speed but don’t spread. I keep a detailed flow of arguments and evidence. Use evidence to refute not just assumptions. Be respectful and friendly. Summary speeches should be used to refute attacks made on your case and Final Foci should be used to respond to attacks as well as extend voters. Impact calc will sell me on why I should vote for you. You'll sell me on terminal impacts only if they're well warranted and thought out. Don’t get into a recency debate on evidence and if you’re going to argue something is flowing to your side, tell me why. I like clean debate.
Anirudh Iyer Paradigm
Aryan Jasani Paradigm
I compete for Plano Senior High School in Plano,TX in LD and extemporaneous speaking. Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Some Generic Stuff
1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.
2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want, BUT if you are hitting a novice or anyone who has a disability of which they can speak in a faster rate.
3)I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.
4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.
5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, strawmanning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
6)I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence, if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitious is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
8)Prep stops when speech doc is sent.
9)Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
10)If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).
11)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)
Truth Testing v Competing Worlds: I default to truth testing. However, I do not think truth testing excludes the possibility of disads, counterplans, or kritiks. If the position is competitive with the resolution and better links into the winning framework, then it proves the resolution false.
Theory: I will default to “competing interpretations” and “No RVIs”. In my opinion, winning RVI is not real debate; it is a cheap way to earn the ballot.I will not vote off of RVI. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. Instead of doing the work for you I will not evaluate the argument, and I will default to truth testing. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. I'm NOT a fan of frivolous theory, i'll vote on it, but there is a low bar to answering it.
Kritiks: I like good K debate a lot.Your impacts must link into a framework. They could link into a normatively justified framework, or they could link into a pre-fiat role of the ballot. An NR containing a well explained, and well impacted K that doesn't forget about the case is a good thing. An NR containing a K you've never read the lit for is very frustrating. Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category.I'm not generally a huge fan of the 4 minute K overview followed by line by line constituted primarily by "that was in the overview". Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff.
Philosophy/FW:I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates.Make all FW arguments comparative.
LARP/Policy Positions: I am comfortable judging policy positions.I would love you if you did good evidence comparison and comparison of links to the impact rather than doing superficial weighing of impacts. I've read DA's, CP's, and Plans, so I like to think I know most of the lingo and the function. If you read a plan please read specific evidence instead of general util offense for the topic.
Tricks: Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.
3. If you extend an a priori, lean more towards the side of over explanation rather than under explanation. I have a high standard for extensions, so I need to understand a) why the a priori means you affirm/negate b)the claim, warrant, impact of the arg
4.Do not make tricks is the only thing you do, your speaks will suffer heavily.
I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.
1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus beside offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.
2)First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech.
4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.
6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm above.
7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.
I evaluate speaker points purely based on strategy and whether or not you actually listened and slowed down when I yelled clear.
Speaker points will be arbitrary, but I will try to be as consistent as I can be.
Sung Jeon Paradigm
I have debated PF for 3 years and have coached middle school for 2 years.
In terms of specific things in round, I would like to see arguments with logic and evidence. I will call for evidence, if it sounds too good to be true. Make sure to weigh your arguments and breakdown the round.
I am not too familiar with Ks or Theory shells. If you do run them, I won't penalize you, but make sure you make it simple for me to understand.
Please make sure to signpost in rebuttal. Don't be rude in Crossfire and be civil.
If you spread, send me the speech documents.
If you have any questions, ask before the round.
Jayden Johnson Paradigm
Kati Johnson Paradigm
NSDA nationals kiddos that I'm judging:
My paradigm somehow got deleted and that aggressively sucks because it was so thorough. I'm going to put an overview of info for each debate event because of the *time crunch*, but none of this is super specific so PLEASE ask me questions. Sorry for this inconvenience:(
I'm a Diné Mizrahi womxn who's pronouns are she/her. I did LD for three years in high school and qualified to TFA state every year (over 60 state points), NSDA Nationals, and broke at every bid tournament I went to my Junior/Senior year (reaching late elims at most). I'm also a lab leader at NSD '19- woot woot.
Do whatever makes you comfy, I'm not a picky judge:) Just v happy to adjudicate whatever round you're going to make it!
POLICY & LD
-speed rocks & clarity is cool
-extensions need warrants to be real
-overviews are cool
-all k lit is chill w/ me--> but only read radical args that you have the agency to affirm
-friv theory & theory is good with me
-tricks/tricky debate is fine but I want warrants
-disads/cps/plans be chill--> not picky with these debates
-speed is fine
-warrants in extensions are VITAL-> please extend them not just "contention one" or the card name
-clash is important so plz do it
-some sort of weighing mechanism is aggressively preferred
Noah Jolly Paradigm
Be professional. Speak understandably. Time yourselves. When you extend arguments, give me the warrant rather than just stating the tagline, tell me why. Provide analysis in addition to citing evidence. Your summary speech and final focus should share a congruent message. I care more about the strength of your links in topic relevant arguments rather than your general impacts. Don't push impacts in later speeches if you haven't proven how they link to your arguments.
Sun-Woo Kang Paradigm
Impacts good. Links within your arguments and from point to point also good.
Danielle Kappler Paradigm
PF- I don't like spreading, but it will not be a make or break to speaks. However, if I can't understand what you are saying, you will get voted down. Both sides need to give clear voters in summary and final focus. I won't flow cross, but if something crucial happens during cross it will be considered. Most importantly, tell me WHY I should vote for you. What makes your case better than your opponents? Again, clear voters are key.
Edward Kim Paradigm
Ana Kim Paradigm
Rebeca Knapp Paradigm
I'm a PF judge, but I've done most speech events and policy. I've been to Nationals three times, took 3rd at State my Sophomore year, and 1st at Region three times. Now that I've bragged, let me tell you how to win.
TL;DR/The round starts in 2 minutes
-I know what I'm doing. The question is, do you?
-I like quantifiable impacts, strong voters, and tie backs to framework
-Cross-ex is bae (do teens still say that? Probably not), I'm definitely not basing a round on CX, but it might impact speaks if you're rude enough
-have fun, but don't be rude. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. is going to lose you big speaks, and gain you my dislike. Be nice, but you can be sassy
Why are you still reading? You overachiever you. Most of this will apply to PF
First, I don't mind "spreading". Note the quotation marks. In PF we talk fast and call it spreading when it's really not. If you have to share a copy of your case with me, it's too fast. If not, just make sure to slow down a little for tag lines, and I'll do my best to flow.
I like quantifiable impacts. Don't make it into a "Neg kills 3,000 people, vote Aff!" argument, but numbers make it easier to weigh the round.
I'm usually a pretty chill person, and think that rounds should be too. PF is made to be more chill than Policy. That's not to say that we can't have a good round, or that you can be all willy-nilly, I do have standards, and I love a strong, competitive round, but if it's the second flight of the last round of the day, I feel ya. We can be lax.
Cross-ex was my favorite part of debate, and I love a good question that totally traps your opponents and makes me go "Oh snap!". I get that you ask a question to trap them so you can elaborate, but if I have to hear "I'm sorry, is that a question?" more than once in round, I'll be salty. Please try to go back and forth with questions.
If you could go straight down the flow, that'd be rad. I love very few things (cats, my family and ice cream, to be specific) more than drawing arrows across speeches for dropped arguments. V satisfying, but unfortunate for the other side. I get if you don't have time to tackle EVERYTHING, but don't drop a whole case fam. It's easier for me to flow who clearly wins if you're clear too.
I was a pretty pretentious high school debater who thought I was all that and a bag of chips, so it'll just make me laugh if you roll in with a briefcase, matching outfits, laptop stand, and stickers on your computer because I relate.
Please, if you use acronyms in your speech, especially if it's repeatedly used, TELL ME WHAT IT STANDS FOR!! If I end the round having no clue what your acronym means, or have to Google it during grand cross, the ballot probably ain't yours. Sorry. It's a pet peeve.
Going off my list of pet peeves, mispronouncing hegemony or nuclear (nucular warfare isn't a thing, sorry). If you do it, I'll cringe during your whole speech, and while I won't dock you for it, it definitely doesn't do you any favors.
-Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I'll be honest with y'all, I'm a feminist (as per definition, not misandry), and Hispanic (even though I don't look it). Swearing also isn't cool. Be nice to me and each other.
-My fav event. The fact that you've picked the best event already makes you my favorite (but the other events are chill too. Don't hate, we're just better)
-I'm a pretty basic judge. Feel free to ask me for anything specific, I'll be more than happy to answer!
-I love a good human rights argument. I'm sorry if this is pretty biased to one side on any particular topic, but I'm a sucker for HR.
-I'd love a brief, impartial run down of the resolution before the round (especially if it's the first round of the first tournament of the topic). I have a life, and (thank goodness) don't have to do any more PF research. You do, so teach me.
-I don't love PF becoming Policy. Don't run K's or plans, and be clear and concise.
-I've never done it, but I've judged it, and seen some really fire LD rounds.
-If there's something hyper-specific to LD, please explain it well.
-I'll be real, I'm just going to judge this like PF. Sorry I'm so lame
-I'm still a little lost on the whole "value/value criterion". Don't condescendingly explain it to me, imma just use it as framework. Cool?
-If you're doing policy, you already have my respect. It's a really intense debate form, and I applaud you for your dedication
-I get bored easily, and spreading lowkey puts me to sleep. Make the round interesting
-I'm chill with K's, especially fun ones. When I did policy I ran an alt to debate cats v dogs and had the time of my life (albeit for one tournament), so do what you want.
-I might be a little confused, policy isn't my thing. Explain, but don't be condescending.
-I'll probably be a little grumpy that I'm judging policy. Sorry guys, it's just not my thing. I prefer PF
-I've done oratory, informative, impromptu, and spar, and medaled in all of them
-I like pop culture references, but might not catch them all. Sorry. I'm not very cultured.
-humor is sweet, and I love sarcasm. I'm a pretty big history nerd, if that helps
-Do speech kids even read paradigms? I wouldn't
-I'll be fairly lenient. I hate getting a whole tournament messed up because some lay judge thinks giving 26s for good speakers is ok.
-Eye contact is good. It shows you're confident, and know what you're doing
-I'm irrationally into decimals, so while I won't give you a 28.75, half points won't be too uncommon. Sorry, but not really.
If you read all of that, I applaud you. Legit, let me know in round that you read all my paradigms, and while I can't guarantee higher speaks, I'll be heckin' impressed.
I think I got everything, but if you have any questions about my paradigms or your ballot, or you just found a fire meme, feel free to email me at email@example.com . Or if you just want a RedBubble coupon so you can buy MORE laptop stickers.
Good luck in all your rounds!!!
Ethan Knox Paradigm
"The hardest choices require the strongest wills."
I've been doing LD debate for four years, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.
I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.
Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff
I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.
Aditya Kumar Paradigm
Ankith Kurapati Paradigm
What's up I'm Ankith
Carroll Senior High School (Southlake, TX) '19
Cornell University '23
I debated for all 4 years in high school at local, regional, state and national circuit tournaments.
The best way to get my ballot is to use comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.). Other than that, if your final focus is not related to your summary at all you will probably lose.
- First summary does not need to extend defense
- I encourage second rebuttal to cover case but I do not require it
- I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech
- I can flow fast PF rounds but don't spread
- I'm cool with progressive arguments just explain and implicate them well because I never ran them and rarely encountered them
- Tech>Truth but if something egregiously illogical is said the level of rebuttal I expect is much, much lower. This does not mean I don't like unique arguments, I definitely do, but there is a difference between unique and implausible.
- If you're funny I'll give you an extra speaker point but don't try too hard because that won't help you. Roasts done in a respectful manner are definitely my favorite form of humor.
- I'm not too harsh with speaks but also not overly generous. You have to be one of the best debaters I've ever seen to get a 30 (I don't think I've ever deserved a 30) and I generally will not give below a 27 unless something offensive is said.
- Speaking fluently obviously helps but making sound, logical arguments, extending the right pieces of defense, and properly executing your case will also help your speaker points.
Zoe Lamborn Paradigm
Jiu Lee Paradigm
Anna Lembke Paradigm
please preflow before round!
if you bring me candy auto 30 (gum doesn't count)
Daniel Li Paradigm
Xiaomeng Lian Paradigm
Samuel Loh Paradigm
Sam Loh / Updated for start of '19 season
All email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Plano West: 2016-2018
Assistant PF Coach Hebron: August 2018 - June 2019 (Temporary Judging Conflict)
Colleyville Heritage: June 2019 - Present (Permanent Judging Conflict)
I am putting this up here so you don't miss it when reading the whole paradigm. Make sure you read paradigms carefully so there are no "surprises" at the end of the round. Changes have also been bolded in the main paradigm.
With the 3 minute summary change:
-Extensions in summary must include the full argument now (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact) and yes you still need warrants. If you do not extend the full argument, do not expect me to give you offense
-There is no more "sticky defense". Defense must be extended in first summary now or it is dropped
-If you do not do weighing in summary your speaks will tank. I mean it. They literally gave you an entire extra minute.
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in first summary (adopted from the MSJ KW paradigm). This is to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.
-That same rule goes for "going for everything in summary". If you are one of those people who thinks more summary time = more case offense to go for, you will not be happy with speaks.
-My threshold for dropping speaks on finding cards has gone down. I am tired of waiting for people to pull up evidence. I will give you 1:30 to find evidence before I start dropping speaks. For every portion of 30s you go over, it's -0.5. I drop the evidence at 3 minutes. If you disclose full text, a doc with proper cut cards, or hyperlink to original ev, you are protected from this.
o Shortcut (LD/CXers I implore that you also read my LD section for your own sake)
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 2-3 depending on complexity (please no meta meta theory stuff)
K and Philosophy - 3
Tricks - 4 (I don't even know what the definition of this is or what it looks like)
*PF: New offense in second rebuttal is fine but then theory responses become very compelling voting issues
Paradigm is kind of long but truth be told I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:
1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention unless you make a morally reprehensible claim
2) The 2R has to cover turns or I consider them dropped.
3) Defense isn't sticky with a 3 minute summary.
4) CX non binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in speech to try and get out of a concession
5) Don't like "risk of offense" or phrases along the lines of "our ev is good at saying ____"
6) Anything that is not contested in the speech after it is read (except case substance) becomes functionally conceded
7) Need parallelism in summary/ff, offensive extensions must be in both speeches
8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument
9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round
10) no new args/weighing in second ff
12) PF is a debate event, speaks are given on how well you debate not how well you speak
Whole paradigm below:
Personal Preferences not related to argumentation
-Preflowing: Preferably before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes i'm docking .5 speaks for every extra minute you take.
-Coin Flip: I'll be asking for sides and speaking order before the round starts so I don't really care. Flip outside if you want
-Sitting/Standing/etc.: In perfect honesty, I don't care. If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. It's probably most appropriate if you stand during speeches but if it's a late round and you're tired from running around the tournament all day I don't mind if you sit.
-Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD: General thought- post round discussion is good for the activity.
Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. All I ask is that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.
o Postround me if you want to. I don't dock speaks unless you make morally reprehensible statements. I don't care if you're not directly affiliated with the competitors in the room and are just watching - if you disagree feel free to speak out.
o I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more more beneficial than harmful to the debate space
-Spectators: For prelims, the choice is up to the competitors in the room. If you're bringing other members of your team make sure that they're not being disruptive or creating an environment that could negatively influence how the other team performs. If I feel that spectators aren't being respectful of the competitors in the round, I'm asking all spectators to leave.
I generally consider myself tabula rasa and I’ll evaluate any argument you give me on an offense/defense paradigm as long as it’s properly warranted and impacted. However, given that, don’t run something that’s homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.
-Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.
-I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. The only things I dislike are massive card dumps. However, please be logical as to what needs to be carded. Don't tell me that x has gone down without providing a stat.
-At least for me, well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk
-Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Any of this has to be done in the speech following. Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.
-I won't intervene on abuse unless it's condo. If your opponents are being abusive please call them out. However on the flip side the more abusive you are the lower my threshold for how much of an "they're abusive" arg needs to be made for me to consider dropping whatever is being considered abusive. General guidelines: NIBs and other strategy orientated tactics like specific framing will require a shell, super abusive args like conditional cp's and floating pics just require you to point out they're abusive.
-Just for clarification this does not mean that you can just say "they're abusive" when they run theory - you have to engage in the shell debate but there's a higher likelihood I just end up washing more friv theory/t shells and evaluating case as long as you make responses. Additionally, if it's blatantly obvious you're running up against novices, attempting to run anything progressive will tank your speaks.
-Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not be a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.
-If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments in round on going about default otherwise and I think I would be strongly compelled to buy a warranted default first argument
-General Idea: If you don't do a good job responding to terminal defense and just say vote for us on risk, don't expect to win my ballot. Having minimum offense v. having no offense are two completely different things. This is a really big issue with me because I think going solely for "risk" is lazy debate that doesn't require you to win a 100% strength of link into your impact. I'll still evaluate risk but make sure you're not using it to clear untouched terminal defense.
My position on "risk of offense": I think it's reasonable but only to a certain extent. I don't think the aff can expect to win rounds just by saying "risk of offense" without actually responding to anything terminal. This would break the game because if the aff can always win via default risk, neg can't win rounds. I am inclined to give risk of offense that is accessing some kind of weak strength of link into their offense and using risk to emphasize the importance of the possibility of the link triggering the impact. It would be even better if you do the analysis on why risk of that link occurring is so important.
- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.
-Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. Yes, I'm calling those claims because they aren't arguments. Debate isn't I make a claim, you make a claim, and we argue with only claims without thinking about the reasoning those claims are set on. Using these alone will not clear defense for you on my flow and excessive attempts will lose you speaks.
-Meta weighing is important and if such a thing exists, I would be willing to hear arguments about a second layer of meta weighing. If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing
-Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.
-I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.
-If for some reason you feel that it is necessary to go for preemptive frontlines in the 1R I'm fine with it
-If you want to use half or so of your time on the second constructive and the rest of the time responding to opponent case, go for it.
-If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your interp or framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my fwork for evaluation. If one side drops their framework, I will default to whichever is left in the round, this includes second constructive if first speaking team presents a framework. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Anytime after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.
-I usually default util absent framing but it may change depending on what I think is the most meaningful interp of the res. Ofc if you present and warrant your own fwork this doesn't really matter
~Philosophy Type Stuff:
-I really don't think any of this will matter since a lot of the depth here is K stuff (reference K's below) but for those who like to use these args as framing
My order of comfort in evaluating goes:
1) Consequentialism - I'm fine with it
2) Deontology - I have some understanding of this, you should be fine as long as you don't go too deep or draw really obscure lines between ideas
3) Ontology - I have a somewhat/very surface level understanding and how it functions in the round. You probably will have to do a bit of explaining of these if you go for them but I should have a very general idea of what you're saying.
4) It's more high theory but I've read a bit of Baudrillard and Nietzsche. Do I understand it well? No. I am willing to evaluate it? Sure.
5) Not listed - I'll try my best to understand but chances are I'm going to be completely lost and will have no clue how to evaluate. Would advise you to stay away for the sake of your own W/L record.
-Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate but it is still possible to get my ballot if you don't collapse at the cost of speaks.
-I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing in second final unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. If you think it helps start in rebuttal if you really want. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final
-Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.
-No new terminalization of impacts in second final
-Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. Like please spend at least a second on it to avoid confusion. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.
-THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact)
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new ev in first summary
-First summary must extend defense (I.e. it is no longer sticky). Otherwise it's dropped
-My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then I need you to do some minimal warrant impact extension for me to give you offense
-Shadow extension of turns from rebuttal to ff will be weighed as defense but will not be a voting issue. Turns in this context means a real turn that has both the offensive and defensive implications.
-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....
-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization. Even if the opponents extend the impact, you will need to re-implicate why the turn/s means I vote for you
*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument
-Note that running any of these against novices will tank your speaks
-Plans/CP's: Would generally prefer if you don't run these but I'll still evaluate them (unless operating under NSDA rules). I dislike conditional cp's in particular - I'll still evaluate them but keep in mind I will have a super low threshold on dropping the arg if you're called out for being abusive. .
-K's: Generally speaking I'll vote off them. Note that I'm not experienced in the K debate and doing anything super far in the realms of LD/CX is probably going to lose me. This is especially true since I haven't read much K lit (Have read some Wilderson, some Baudrillard) so if things aren't explained you probably aren't going to get the result you want. You've been warned.
-Theory: In short I default to reasonability, no rvi.
Winning only defense on a shell doesn't constitute rvi
Winning turns on the shell without a CI constitutes a vote on the opponent's interp in the round
Special Note on disclosure theory since it's become somewhat controversial: I know most think theory should only be used in regards to in round abuse and I agree that I don't see the in round abuse of not disclosing on the wiki either. However, evidence ethics have gotten so bad i'm fine evaluating it as norm setting behavior. If you don't want to deal with it my advice is to just disclose.
-T: Generally follow the same reasoning as theory (posted above). However, note that my threshold for T is higher than it is for theory. If you try to run some crazy policy type extra-t stuff I'm just going to be lost. Reading multiple t shells is ok but make sure you can name advocacies that grant ground. I really don't care if you are winning condo good on the flow, I'm not buying condo good in pf with 2 minute speech times.
T Defaults: Competing Interps, No RVI, Drop the Debater, T before Theory
-For roadmaps I'm fine with "x off" as long as you're signposting and tagging each off at the top
-If you plan on reading at a pace much faster than traditional pf please email me speech docs. If not you run the risk of me missing something so that's on you. Please slow down on plan texts, alts, interps, and standard tags. Thanks :)
Spreading and the likes of it:
-If you think your opponents are spreading you out of the round, feel free to slow/clear while they're speaking. I think that in order to have the most functional and fair debate, both sides should have the right to understand what the other team is saying and what their arguments are. Try to keep it reasonable from both ends. If you yell clear when it is very obvious to me that there isn't a need to, you're losing .5 speaks.
-Don't know why people do wpm counts, I don't get the point. I'll clear you if needed. If you think you're running too close to a dangerous boundary you probably are. Email chains/flash to everyone in round is appreciated.
-TLDR: My range is generally 27-29. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job.
Stats for your own reference:
2018-2019 VPF Year Average: ~28.5 (220 total speakers)
-Just because I judged for a policy school does not mean because I can follow spreading because I can't. I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. Too many clears in a row will also lead to speaker point loss
-I personally believe that speaker points should be reflective of both how strategic you are and how well you handle the arguments in the round. Engaging with links, warrants, and similar depth type debate that creates a really good round is the easiest way to get higher speaks. That being said, there are other things that you still have to do. (I.e. responding to opponent's arguments/not extending through ink, collapsing, etc.) Expect average speaks to be around 28.
-General Penalties (This is just a condensed list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):
1) taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)
2) taking too long pull up evidence (.5 for every extra 30s after 1:30), teams who disclose are protected.
3) being non strategic (depends on how hard I think you butcher it, includes no weighing/going for everything)
4) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)
5) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you
6) Too much use of the frontline "Our evidence is very specific in saying ___" instead of engaging with the warranting behind argumentation.
7) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears
8) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices
9) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.
10) Severe evidence misrep. (Trust me you prob. won't want to see your speaks if you do this)
-Bonus speaks. When I say my non-bubble average is 28 I mean my average is a 28. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you
1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)
2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)
3) Cutting at least one cross short when you have no questions left (+.2). Note that you cannot cut the entirety of grand cross for obvious reasons
4) Email chaining/flashing the AR/NR with properly cut evidence gets both partners a .5 speaker point bump
5) At any tournament , disclosure on the NDCA wiki gets you 1 speaker pt bonus. Yes you will get a full speaker point bump.
6) If you have an page on the PF Circuit Debater Wiki (found here) with uploaded prep from previous topics, you get a full 1pt speak bump. Circuit Debater is a great resource for all debaters and I'm encouraging you to use it. If you haven't looked at it you should definitely check it out.
I've changed how I explain this part pretty drastically from how it used to be but the ideas remain mostly the same.
- I do not call for evidence unless I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also tend to base my understanding of your ev based on how it was originally read.
- I would suggest reading cut cards in case and having cut cards for anything you read available. Disclosing is good practice and should be mandated, I'll give you a speaker point bonus. Sending speech docs of cards read in rebuttal is also good and you also get bonus speaks.
-If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm not calling for it because you're not getting the extension on my flow. You should know what your own evidence says and if you're trying to do some shady ev misrep that's a definitive no.
-Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.
-"Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In round, a minute thirty to search, -0.5 speaks each minute you go over, I drop it at 3 min. In the case I call for ev after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it".
o L20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.
o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it's a flat speaker point penalty for being unorganized and I drop the ev out of the round.
o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.
-I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.
-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.
-No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging. Will get emails of at least one debater from each team so I can copy rfd from ballot onto an email for all of you.
Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of two people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:
Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round
-If I had more PF teams competing here I wouldn't be judging LD/CX but since you're reading this we're going to have to find a way to make it work.
-If it makes it easier for you to do MJP:
o I never did any LD/CX in high school, just pf. Familiar with structures of CP's/K's/Theory,T and can probably evaluate it on a surface level. I can't follow spreading.
o 2018-2019 Season I judged about maybe 10-12 rounds of LD, 2 at some Dallas local (non bid, relatively small pool), Majority of prelims at UT
-I'm willing to evaluate any standard argument on an offense/defense paradigm and weighing is greatly appreciated (I don't want to have to intervene)
-I reserve the right to drop you for any offensive language
-When making extensions in later speeches, please extend the argument. I don't want just an author name
-I would prefer you to stay away from philosophy because I don't understand it very well.
-For more progressive stuff: As long I think you are doing a good job of engaging with the link story and clash on progressive args, I will reward you with 29-30 speaks hopefully to offer minimum compensation for my lack of ld qualification. If I feel that the debate is revolving around simple stock structure args that are present in every debate space, I will be more picky about speaks (you can reference the pf speaks section above).
-Standard Plan Aff's, DA's, CP's.: I have a general understanding of how these arguments work but if you're doing anything super technical you probably will have to explain it. I don't know what the norms in LD are but please do not read multiple conditional counterplans. Floating pics are not ok either.
-Theory/T: Theory/T comes before case and the default is reasonability no rvi. I had a fair understanding of how these worked in PF but I don't know the norms in LD and you'll have to do explanation and/or analysis on what constitutes abuse for theory. I think I would be lead to believe T more than theory.
-K's: I don't have a great understanding of K debate. I get the link/impact/alt but don't know much about "clash" on k. I haven't read any of the standard LD k evidence so don't expect me to know a lot. I'll try my best to evaluate K but don't expect too much.
-Completely unfamiliar with evaluating >2 Layers so T before K type arguments (or vice versa), meta theory, etc. will require explanation
-If you're reading 3 or more of the same type of off (DA, theory, t, etc.) I need a more specific roadmap. If you are reading any off that is a technical part of ld I will probably need specific explanation.
Speed: If you re planning to spread this is probably where I'm going to have the hardest time following you given my background. Please email me speech docs beforehand and I will clear you if I need to.
Summer Long Paradigm
I was a NSDA Qualifier in 2018 & IHSA State Runner-up from 2019 in LD. I also qualified for NSDA in 2019 for PF. I debated my junior and senior year in LD and PF. I am an extremely traditional debater from a traditional circuit.
My general paradigms:
*I can handle speed as long as you are clear. If you are unclear, I will drop my pen and stop flowing.
*If you have a card that discusses a hypothetical (or anything, really), but cannot explain what/why and you are called on it, I will be more inclined to believe your opponent and their evidence if they are able to elaborate on it. PLEASE know your own evidence.
*If your opponent asks for evidence, cross examination / prep time will be paused until it is provided. If this is during prep time, all debaters must drop their pens and look forward until the evidence is provided.
*Please be kind to your opponent. This is cliche, but debate is an educational activity. Roasting intellectually (picking apart flawed logic, logically) makes a more entertaining and friendly debate.
*Your framework is incredibly important in the round. Your value is what we are aiming for; your value contention is a method to strive for your value. If your case is about freedom, yet your value is progress, winning the framework will mean you lost the round (since your case doesn't flow under it.) If you feel you've lost framework, or you and your opponent have similar frameworks, flowing under that will be your best shot at winning.
*Frameworks are allowed, but not essential. However, if you do not respond to your opponent's framework, you have conceded to it and your best shot is to flow under it.
Lydia Mackey Paradigm
Charlotte Mayer-Heckathorn Paradigm
Casie Meyer Paradigm
talk about arguments, not just cards, and just don’t be stupid.
Jeffrey Miller Paradigm
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)
**New for 2019**
Strike me if you're not going to read cards. These are cards. (Thanks Christian Vasquez for the link) Two reasons for this - a) I am sick of having a "recess" during the debate for you to take 20 minutes finding a card you just spoke into the debate; b) I am sick of calling for cards to find that they don't match what you say. It is not hard to adapt to this standard if you do research. If you don't do research, you probably don't want me as a judge anyways.
What does this mean? In your constructive and in your rebuttal, the arguments you make should be carded and exact quotes from the author. Yes, this means you will make less arguments in the rebuttal - that is better. Card dumps are not productive for this activity. Making fewer, smarter arguments in the rebuttal will help you long term.
So what happens if we don't adapt or no one in the debate adapts? If a situation arises like the two instances above (that is, me calling for cards to clear up confusion around warrants/extrapolations made in the debate, or you can't produce evidence in a timely manner), you will lose speaker points and the debate if the evidence is egregiously miscut.
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 2 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.
TOP SPEAKERS OF THE YEAR (29+)
Thomas Gill – 29.5 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Francesca Lupi – 29.4 (Round 9 @ Ivy Street RR)
Jacqueline Wei – 29.4 (Round 8 @ Ivy Street RR)
Jack Johnson – 29.4 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Morgan Swigert - 29.3 (Round 3 @ NDCA)
Ryan Jiang – 29.3 (Round 9 @ Ivy Street RR)
Daniel Fernandez – 29.3 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Noah Kaye – 29.2 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Izzy Wu - 29.2 (Round 3 @ NDCA)
Jennifer Lin – 29.1 (Round 8 @ Ivy Street RR)
Noah Kaye – 29.0 (Round 4 @ Blake RR)
SPEAKER POINT AVERAGES
Kentucky – 117.4 (4 debaters, 29.4 average)
Valley – 222.9 (8 debaters, 27.9 average)
Holy Cross – 444 (12 debaters, 27.8 average)
Bronx – 554.4 (20 debaters, 27.7 average)
Apple Valley – 558.9 (20 debaters, 27.9 average)
Blake – 107.5 (4 debaters, 26.8 average)
Blake RR - 227 (8 debaters, 28.4 average)
Ivy Street RR – 334.4 (12 debaters, 28.7 average)
North GA Districts - 220.9 (8 debaters, 27.6 average)
St. James - 258 (10 debaters, 25.8 average)
NDCA - 447.8 (16 debaters, 28.0 average)
NUMBER OF DEBATES / SIDE SPLIT
UNCLOS – 29 debates (17-12 AFF)
Pharma – 7 debates (6-1 AFF)
Debt – 12 debates (7-5 AFF)
Saudi Arabia - 4 debates (3-1 AFF)
India - 6 debates (1-5 AFF)
Joshua Miller Paradigm
For PF: The event is designed to be realistic and "public". I am not a "flow judge", I vote on holistic debating. If you want to impress me as a judge, combine logos, ethos, and pathos. If you overly emphasize any single one of those three elements, I see that as weaker debating. Since the idea of the debate is to be accessible to the average citizen, I act as if I have only little basic knowledge on the issue at hand, so arguments that depend on large amounts of knowledge you don't provide me will not work for you. Do not speak too quickly or without clarity, I will not listen, and I'll make it obvious I'm not listening. I love to be entertained, because your ability to do so makes me believe you are confident and will help your ethos. Above all, stay calm, and stay confident, because I firmly believe that you're capable of much more than you might think.
Claire Mischel Paradigm
Taylor Mittelstedt Paradigm
I am a recent high school graduate with three years of speech and debate experience, specifically in PF, LD, Congress, Big Questions, World Schools, limited prep, and interp events.
As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. Also, don't be rude to your opponents. I'm okay with a little sass because sometimes debate calls for it, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.
Feel free to ask me more questions in the round if you have them.
Jacob Moldover Paradigm
Eva Motolinia Paradigm
I debated for 6 years in PF.
My judging style is very tech but persuasion is still important. Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem.You should probably strike me if you are not reading from cards. I think paraphrasing is only acceptable for a handful of cases (i.e. a statistic).
I don't require it but I do think that 2nd rebuttal should rebuild.
Defense needs to be in first summary.
If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.
In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions.
I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact.
Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone).
If the tournament allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.
Andrew Neider Paradigm
Joe Owens Paradigm
Stephanie Oyolu Paradigm
I prefer a moderate speaking tempo. I pay a lot of attention to dropped arguments and do not appreciate abusive definitions or observations.
Rachel Pang Paradigm
1. I can handle as much speed as you want as long as you’re speaking comprehensibly. If you’re no longer enunciating, I’ll drop my pen so you know to slow down.
2. I’ll vote off the flow. Weigh arguments clearly, use warrants, don’t just spit out cards/extensions, signpost, and give me voters.
3. If a card is critical to the round and there’s significant debate over it, I may ask for it.
4. I’m down for more progressive debate, but it has to be done well. Make sure if you’re running something non-traditional, it has a purpose and isn’t just there to confuse your opponents.
5. Don’t be rude to your opponents or yell in crossfire. I like humor/sass but keep it under control.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round!
Tiana Park Paradigm
Be intelligible oml
if you speak too fast, chill
if you have to cram content, cut
if your voice is quiet, speak up
-Do not rely entirely on the logic of your argument, make sure you have evidence to support your arguments- otherwise, I will likely dismiss them from the round
-Make sure you cite your sources, I focus primarily on the relevancy of the information presented
-Put emphasis on the impacts of your arguments
-Present clear voters
-I do not count time looking for a card as part of your prep
-I DO count time reading a card as time of your prep
-Please, PLEASE, don't ask for a card during crossfire, do that during prep
-On the topic of crossfire, unless specific information is brought up again during a speech, it will probably be dismissed
-Please drop speculative arguments/dead-end questions
-WEIGH PLEASE OML
Cydney Parks Paradigm
The most important thing to me is that both teams have fun :) Debate is alot more than just winning, its a fun event and at the end of the day we all came to get more experience and do what we love!
With that being said... if you want to have fun and win, there's only 2 thing I really NEED to see for you to win: clear speaking and clash!
If you have any other questions on my paradigms, feel free to ask me before the round starts! I will gladly answer any questions you have.
Krish Patel Paradigm
Hello. My name is Krish Patel. I am a Hebron debater and yes I wanna be on the email chain. email@example.com
Look on this both Gavin Loyd and Aashir Sanjrani's paradigm as a further summary of my thoughts on debate.
Here are my thoughts on all argument:
T - I will vote on T, however it is essential to prove abuse
DA - I need to see the impact and a good link story, make sure to do comparative impact calculus
CP - Make sure there is a good net benefit that proves it's better than the aff
PICs- I will vote for it - make them creative
K - I love the K, make sure to focus on link explanation
General thoughts: You'll typically get between a 28 and a 30, and most times tech over truth
Have fun and don't be offensive!
Stephanie Rifkin Paradigm
Trey Roark Paradigm
I am a high school debate captain that has competed in every debate style, but mainly a CX debater at Bentonville West High School. If you have any questions about the round or debate in general don't hesitate to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions before the round, just ask, but make sure those questions are not answered by these paradigms because you should know what your judge prefers before entering a round.
Please do NOT disrespect your opposing team not only while debating but anytime within interaction with them, that is reason for me to immediately vote your team down based off of disrespect and an unethical display of your team.
Make sure to just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean
I think anything can go in public forum, and believe that if anything is explained well enough that I can definitely buy that reasoning. However I do not think this is a way to completely avoid the use of evidence. I believe that evidence is one of the most crucial pieces in a debate round and you can never win without it. Not to mean that you should overflow your opponent with evidence, because this isn't CX debate, but you should have a decent amount of quality evidence to support your case. I also believe that the more recent your evidence, the better. If you've seen recent news, there are so many scenarios that show anything could happen/change over just one day, so your evidence should be better engaged with current events rather than a fact some professor says from 1988. Although if your evidence is only a couple of months to a year off from your opponents, I'm not going to give you the win on that unless you give me an important reason as to why.
I am more of a line by line judge, so if there's something on the flow for your opponents, I uphold your team to the responsibility of answering that argument with efficiency. Drops by the opposing team should be noticed and brought up immediately and are also a critical point in the debate round. Don't just say what the opposing team dropped, tell me why it's important that they dropped it and what it does for the round. I don't believe that one drop can win you the round (unless it's completely critical to the round) therefore, if you end up dropping something, continue to hit hard defensively. Although bringing up a new argument in the rebuttal speeches is considered abuse with me especially by second speakers because it completely wrecks the ground of the opposing side having to prepare answers for that new argument.
The last couple of speeches should be focused on why you win the round. I need more evidence as to why you're team wins rather than why the other team lost. I want to know what I'm voting on by the end of the debate (Although still continue to keep a good grasp on the attacks of your opponents). So, make sure you evaluate on voters and give me context of the evidence when you talk about it in later speeches. Don't just name the author when extending, explain to me why their evidence is important.
Because I am a CX debater, I don't mind speed, and I'll have no problem understanding you, but I have competed in public forum and I should not hear anything near spreading. It should almost be like telling a story, except with facts and evidence.
Aggressive debaters typically don't go well with me, because I find them to cross the line between debating and abusing. Therefore, I believe that the round shouldn't be a screaming match, however that doesn't mean you can't add a little sass to your speaking.
On that, cross-ex is also one of the most important aspects to a debate round. I love people who can find the holes in their opponents case through questioning as well as tying that question into their rebuttal speech. There are many judges who look on their phone, or just don't pay attention during the questioning period. I'm not one of those judges. Cross Examination is one of my favorite parts and one I believe can make or break a round.
Never steal prep from the other team, you should be ready to speak less than 20 seconds after you say stop prep. It's not as much of a problem with public forum, but I still see it in many rounds. So just don't do it. Use it wisely and allocate your time to your benefit and you'll be fine.
When you do speak, do not speak into your computer/notepad. I also believe eye contact is very convincing when debating in a round especially when persuading your judge. Even though I may be flowing and not looking at you, you should almost always be looking at me except when reading evidence or looking at your flow for reference.
Content wise, I believe any argument, with enough evidence and analytics, no matter how out of the box, can win, but I think it still has to pertain to the topic at hand still consisting of evidence and explaining to back it up. You're first two speeches should consist of making sure you build up your contentions your going to use throughout the round.
Emily Robinson Paradigm
Tasha Robinson Paradigm
PF: I am a tabula rasa judge, assume I have no outside knowledge. Do not make me assume anything - tell me your impact, tell me why it is important.
You should be able to win without being misleading, abusive, or dishonest.
Give me clear voters in your final focus.
I vote off of the flow - give me good signposting. I will weigh both the number of won arguments and impact of those arguments.
Be confident, fill time, be respectful.
Ty Rossow Paradigm
Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a first year out at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics and philosophy. I am also an LD instructor at VBI.
--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.
--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.
----- I enjoy highly technical debates.
------- Speed is fine but be clear.
------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.
------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.
----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.
Policy AFFs: I like them.
*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.
*** I’m also cool with soft-left AFFs.
K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for it. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.
Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.
CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.
K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am willing to listen to continental philosophy as long as it is explained well. In addition:
*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.
*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.
*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.
*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.
T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.
*** I generally default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability.
Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote on it if you’re clearly ahead.
*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.
*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.
*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.
*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.
*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.
*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.
*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.
*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. Impact turns to clash and fairness won’t get you far; I am highly inclined to believe that both of these are voting issues. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, is a much better strategy in front of me.
*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is therefore paramount to many decisions.
---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.
---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.
---- LD rounds are often light on warrants and efficiency. If you are superior to your opponent in both of those regards, you will get my ballot over 90% of the time.
K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:
*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.
*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.
Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.
*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.
Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat. With that being said, I do have a couple of comments:
*** Oftentimes, I feel like phil cases rely heavily on jargon to confuse opponents and go for drops. If you rely on this and your opponent messes up, I will vote for it, but I a) will not understand much and b) feel as if you are creating a bad pedagogical model, so your speaks will suffer.
*** On the contrary, phil cases that are well-explained and accessible will receive higher speaks. Giving examples that prove your philosophy will be a major help with this.
Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.
*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I will be very frustrated, lower your speaks, and my threshold for you “winning the argument” will be high.
*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.
*** RVIs are debatably fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.
*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”
*** If you are aff, please do not pretend you have multiple different warrants if all of them collapse to time skew.
*** AFC, TJF, and the whole gamut of exceedingly silly theory arguments will annoy me.
*** Abusive under-views will annoy me as well.
Raul Ruano Paradigm
Sandeep Shankar Paradigm
I debated throughout high school for Lincoln-Sudbury (in Massachusetts).
I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding.
I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.
This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.
Extensions of Defense:
With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.
More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.
Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.
Extensions of Offense:
an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances
keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)
Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.
don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.
I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.
1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.
2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.
3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.
I require qualifications of sources. Saying Smith 19 doesn't quite do it for me, who is smith and why should i trust his opinion? Oral citations should preferably include Last name, qualification, and the date. If you don't read qualifications, which can be as basic as the website you are citing from, your speaker points won't be over a 28.5
You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.
Tech vs Truth:
i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well
i vote for the status quo on presumption
i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.
i am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.
Speaks - they'll be based on your ability to convince me rhetorically, not necessarily on your strategy. This is still Public Forum Debate, it's the name of the game.
please ask any questions you may have before the round
at the end of the round, i will disclose the result and provide feedback. Ask me any questions about anything and I'll be down to give you whatever answer I can provide. I think providing feedback after round is the most direct way to convey my thoughts to you as debaters, so I'll prioritize that over writing down comments when I need to.
Andy Shufer Paradigm
Tech over truth, but treat me like I'm a lay judge. I don't like teams that just card dump on their opponents hoping to win the round on sheer quantity of arguments alone. If you collapse on a good argument and warrant it well, I'm much more compelled to vote for you over a team that just spoke quickly.
I prefer line by line rebuttals at the very least. If you choose to go with an unconventional order, then please signpost! If I can't follow you, I'll be very sad.
Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defense, but definitely offense - this means turns. I think it's extremely abusive to not respond to a turn that was placed on you in first rebuttal until second summary. If you choose not to respond to turns in your rebuttal, it doesn't mean it's an instant vote down, but your chances of winning the round are slim :((. Defense in first summary sticks unless the other team unstuck it in second rebuttal.
Some kind of framing at some point in the round is definitely preferred because it'll help me decide what to evaluate better. That being said, if no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. This may or may not be good for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If no one has a question please just sit down and cut crossfire short. No one wants to be there longer than we have to. If no one has a question, end it early and I'll give everyone .5 higher speaks. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in a speech if you want it to have weight.
Please weigh your arguments in any way you choose. I'll try not to intervene but I'll be forced to if no one weighs and there's offense on both sides. You also have to weigh your weighing, i.e, tell me why your weighing mechanisms are better than your opponents.
I don't mind calling for evidence after the round if a team tells me to, or if I think you're lying about your evidence. If you can't produce a piece of evidence, then I'll drop the evidence from the round. You argument can still win if you warrant it well without the evidence though. Also, when I read the evidence, I will read the ENTIRE piece of evidence, not just the part that you cite.
I prefer a big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you best collapse boy.
I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good!
I can flow pretty well, but don't spread. If you speak at sanic levels I might miss the argument. If I'm just staring at you and not flowing, it probably means you're speaking at sanic levels.
Generally 28-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
I'll evaluate them the same as any other normal argument, but if you go too far into the technicalities, you might lose me.
If you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask me! If you have any questions after the round, feel free to find me! Have fun!
Nicholas Simila Paradigm
I'm a junior in High School who has done two years of policy debate and about one and a half years of LD, which is now my main event. That being said, I understand the jargon in both formats so feel free to use them.
I am tabula rasa to an extent. Where I draw the line is how well you explain the argument. For example, if you're going to present a link chain for a nuclear war argument, make it well-explained. Don't expect me to vote for you saying "Nuke war will happen" with no explanation on why or how. Nor will I vote on burdens perceived to be abusive, and it's your job to explain why/why not something is abusive. That being said, as long as you are able to clearly explain the argument you are putting forth I will take it into consideration for my decision.
In LD, I'll determine who argues their framework better and then evaluate the contention level to see who wins. In Policy, I'll default to util unless framing arguments are put forth.
Don't be rude or belittling. It will affect your speaker points greatly.
I'm fine with DAs, CPs, and Ks, even to an extent in LD. However, I think it is unfair to run Policy arguments in front of an LDer who may not be used to them and would, therefore, be at a significant disadvantage.
For DAs, clearly explain the link chain scenario, the trigger, timeframe, impact, etc. I hate vague DAs.
For CPs, it is your burden to explain why it is mutually exclusive and why it is net better than the plan.
I've run Ks and I've also run a critical aff. If you're running a K, remember to explain the philosophical backing to it, don't immediately assume that your opponent and I understand all the philosophical jargon and premise of the K.
In LD, as mentioned previously, I'm totally fine with you running these. It's just that I have a traditional lens in terms of LD so I won't consider these as heavily in comparison to traditional case structure.
I did policy for two years. I can get on down the flow in LD. I'm okay with speed to an extent. Clarity is key! If you feel the need to spend everyone in round your speech doc to read along with you, you might be going a little too fast.
I'm okay with most arguments run to an extent and I am comfortable with speed to an extent. Remember that debate is an activity that we are all supposed to enjoy, so be nice and respectful to your fellow competitors.
Arjun Singh Paradigm
1. I try to not bring my own beliefs into a round as much as possible, meaning that if you something is true, I will generally believe it unless shown otherwise.
2. For an argument to matter to me, it has to have clear reasoning as to why your claim leads to your impact.
3. I would like for second rebuttal to frontline, but I will not drop you for it.
4. First summary does not need to extend offense.
5. PLEASE WEIGH.
6. Don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.
7. Please be respectful to your opponents.
8. If you have any other questions, just ask me in round.
Shantanu Sinha Paradigm
I have been a member of NSDA for two years.
In those two years I have competed in:
- Lincoln Douglas
- Public Forum
- Parliamentary Debate
In regards to judging, no matter what debate I am looking at, I flow whatever is said at face value. In other words, please explain why, how, and to what extent the points you wish to make affect the round and the debate.
I understand spreading and will expect the round to be set up in terms of framework clearly. Framework can be debated on but should never be the main focus in the whole debate.
I enjoy hearing logical and reasonable arguments and always like to see direct clashes while maintaining unique contentions and refutations.
In the end, the debate's purpose is to educate, not to win. Please be respectful and courteous throughout the entire round and have fun. Enthusiasm shows me an interest in the topic and the debate.
Tait Smith Paradigm
I have 4 years of experience in both PF, Congress, and LD. I competed on primarily traditional circuits but I do understand progressive debate for PF.
How I judge:
I vote almost solely on what happens in the round with framework being the first thing I consider and speaking and strategy being the last. So if you impact to only economic downfall but forget to attack the framework that says we should focus on saving lives then that’s an L for you.
How to annoy me:
Here are a few ways you can annoy me in the round: lying, running Ks, not having fully explained and carded links, not giving your opponents the evidence they call for in a timely manner, defining every word in the resolution, acting arrogant. I will add more as time goes on.
What I like:
I like humorous and casual rounds. When people act overly formal it makes rounds more interesting. Some of my best rounds involved power phrases from Reddit, graphs, and people making jokes with the judge during their prep time. On the flip side I will notice if you’re trying to hard and count you off, don’t be a teachers pet, I just want fun rounds.
Patrick Smith Paradigm
I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:
1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.
2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.
3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.
4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing is important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.
5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.
6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.
7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.
8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving into the other side of the flow or weighing.
9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.
10. References - any well executed Biggy, Kendrick, Logic, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.
11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.
Matt Struth Paradigm
Matt Liu (formerly Matt Struth)
University of Wyoming
Last updated: 5-15-19
Email chain: email@example.com
I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.
Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.
Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.
Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.
Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.
Pooja Tallapaneni Paradigm
I did circuit ld and traditional ld and policy for four years.
Read whatever, I’ll try to be tab and am tech over truth.
bring me water or snacks and I’ll boost your speaks.
don’t be racist, sexist or offensive
Damian Truax Paradigm
Ryan Tullis Paradigm
Past debater for Lakeville South High School. I did 2 years of traditional LD then 2 years of circuit PF, I've also competed in Congress, Worlds, Big Questions, and Policy.
Speed: Don't talk faster than you can breathe. I flow what I hear and I have no issues keeping up in PF but common sense dictates the faster you go the higher chance something gets missed so you do you fam.
Evidence: evidence should not win you rounds. 95% of statistics read in debate are either wrong or out of context including this one. The way you win with evidence and stats is by explaining the warrants behind the them and understanding what they mean in context. BTW an opinion article written by some WSJ guy about how he thinks "X is going to happen" is barely evidence.
Respect: Respect and Education come before winning. You know the drill, attack the argument, not the person even if that person is not in the room.
I don't know what else to say, debate good, weigh your arguments, and don't do anything dumb.
If I'm judging you in Worlds, Congress, Policy, or Nat Circuit LD I'm just as confused as you.
Questions or comments: firstname.lastname@example.org (952)-423-8905
Bela Urbina Paradigm
Ramani Vaidyanathan Paradigm
Nicholas Valin Paradigm
Daniel Waks Paradigm
- No spreading
- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow
- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include in speech
- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological
- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use
-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions
-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence.
- I hate pronouns. I don't know who "they" are unless you tell me (varsity debaters do this more than novices).
Patrice Wallace Paradigm
Sasha Ware Paradigm
Colin Wei Paradigm
Kenneth Wu Paradigm
Nianwei Xing Paradigm
Lillian Ye Paradigm
Yong Jong Shawn Yen Paradigm
What is your debate/judge experience?
Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.
What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?
Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.
Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.
Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.
What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?
"Spreading" inane arguments.
Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.
Rude, talk over opponents.
Jesus Zamarripa Paradigm
Jingmei Zhang Paradigm
As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. I am not very familiar with the timing rule, you have to time each other.
Ningchuan Zhu Paradigm
Volodymyr Zhuravskyy Paradigm
Background: I am your average high school flow judge. I’ve been doing PF for 3 years at American Heritage High School in Florida.
How I evaluate rounds: Nothing special here. I’m a tabula rasa judge; I will evaluate any argument as long as it’s properly extended, warranted, and impacted out. In other words, I’m extremely opposed to any kind of intervention (unless your argument is blatantly offensive) and anything I learn outside of the round will never affect my decision. If someone introduces a framework then I will evaluate offense that falls under it. If no one does, then I’ll default to a cost/benefit analysis. From there I’ll just vote for the team that has more offense that is properly extended (in both summary and final focus).
Speed: I’m perfectly fine with any PF speed and some mild spreading provided that your opponents can comprehend you and you can clearly articulate everything you say. I get it, sometimes you have to speak faster, especially in the summary. With that in mind, I don’t think spreading is necessary in PF and I’d be much happier if you speak clearly and the debate is understandable.
Evidence: I will only call for evidence in one specific situation.
Someone tells me to call for the card because it’s misrepresented and specifies what’s wrong with it.
If the card is misrepresented slightly, then I’ll just drop the argument and potentially dock your speaks. If the card has been brought up multiple times and is egregiously misrepresented then I’ll drop the team. However, my threshold for that is pretty high and you’d have to blatantly lie for that to happen. I allow new evidence in summary, as long as it’s defensive. New evidence in the final focus will not be evaluated.
Overviews. I strongly dislike offense-heavy, Disad/Advantage style "overviews" in the second rebuttal. If you're going for those then don't be angry when I drop it once your opponents put 1-2 blippy responses on it. I'm ok with similar "overviews" in 1st rebuttal.
Extensions: Unless you’re the first speaking team extending defense, anything said in the final focus must be in the summary. In other words, I don’t require the first speaking team to extend any defense and I’ll be ok with you extending defense straight from the rebuttal to final focus. The exception for that would be addressing turns which should still happen in summary. I don’t require the second speaking team to cover their own case in rebuttal (except for turns obviously), but doing so will bump your speaks. When you extend a piece of evidence don’t just give me the name of the author/the source, instead tell me what the evidence says and how that factors into the round. You can extend stuff very quickly with little explanation if it is cleanly conceded. Please narrow down the round and collapse in both summary and final focus, pick one/two arguments that you’re winning and go for those.
Signposting: I like short roadmaps before speeches even if you’re not jumping back and forth between cases or doing something crazy. Other than that, please tell me where to flow what you say during your speeches or I might not register it. I’d prefer a line by line, but I won’t have any problems with you grouping arguments together (as long as you explicitly tell me that your responses apply to multiple arguments and explain why)
Ex.: “As for the second warrant under their third contention, ”
Weighing: As much as I love it when people weigh, I’m not going to die if you don't. I’m capable of doing common sense magnitude and probability weighing on my own. If one team saves 100 lives and the other one saves 200, then you don’t have to yell random words such as “magnitude” and “probability” at me. Instead, I’d be much happier if you focus on telling me why your impact is more important than what your opponents have on the flow or why your link is stronger. If you are impacting to the economy and they are impacting to lives, then tell me why the economy is more important. Tell me why short term is better than long term or vise versa. Tell me why their link chain that requires all eight planets of the solar system to align is worse than your explicit link.
Speaks: Avoid being characterized with any of the “-ist” words, don’t be offensive, and you shouldn’t get anything below a 27. Personally, I appreciate humor and especially some moderate sarcasm. My threshold for being mean is significantly higher than that of an average judge (probably because I’m not the nicest debater out there), but if you're rude you better be good.
Presumption: You don't have to tell me to vote on presumption but I will always try to vote on a risk of offense first. I default con if there's no offense in the round but I'm very open to alternatives such as presuming first (so long as you warrant them properly).
Theory: I dislike frivolous theory but at the end of the day what I might consider frivolous you might consider justified so go for it you feel like it. Chances are you won't get good speaks from me if you're reading theory just to read theory but I will evaluate it regardless. I will not accept theory in paragraph form so make sure you're not missing any parts of a shell, otherwise, I'll ignore it. I'll be more or less familiar with common types of theory but if you're going for something more complex you're doing it at your own risk.
Kritiks - You're taking a pretty big risk if you're reading a K in front of me. I'm more or less familiar with the structure but I will have zero knowledge of your authors or their literature. Speak in plain English when explaining everything including your tags and if I understand it then I'll vote on it.
ricky ames Paradigm
Samantha clements Paradigm
Hi! Congratulations for making it to nationals. I'm sure you'd like a little bit of help as to what your judge cares about, and that's where I come in.
- Firstly, I am a Public Forum debater through and through, so I am going to judge you in a logical, tangible way regardless of your event.
- I can handle speed, but give me a heads up. Spreading and speed are different, and if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow. That's your cue to slow down or to explain your points better. And if you're giving a rebuttal, SIGN POST.
- I am a flow judge, and expect you to prove to me where in the flow you've won. If you don't show me on the flow, then you best explain how your impacts outweigh theirs.
- I will not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other derogatory language. If you have to insult your opponent to win, you don't deserve to.
- I am more inclined to vote for you, if you can incorporate 1 (and only 1, more doesn't add more) classic movie quote well into your final focus (or whatever the equivalent of that is).
jin hur Paradigm
brockton lundy Paradigm
This is my eighth year of debate experience; four years as a debater and four years as a coach. I have judged policy at numerous invitationals, state tournaments, and nationals. I debated Public Forum and LD in high school. I now coach Parli.
I do not like spread. You will most likely lose my ballot if you choose to do so.
Debate is about effective communication. My general philosophy is to keep your arguments clear, topical, probable, and impactful. This means I want you to avoid arguments that disregard framer intent, have no bearing on the quality of life amongst any living being, or involve nuclear war. (I do not care if it is the tradition of CX debate. I do not care how many "links" you provide me. The more links you include the weaker your argument).
It is within your best interest to avoid (Ks/Theory). Some of you will choose to ignore this advice; make sure these arguments are at least warranted and impactful. Make sure all Ts and Stock Issues have warrants and impacts as well. If you do not extend the impacts or weigh the arguments I cannot flow those arguments to your side of the debate.
I prefer fewer well thought out arguments instead of many less developed ones.
Treat me like the idiot that I am and keep things simple. Debate doesn't need to be overly technical.