Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2020

2020 — Las Vegas, NV/US

Jade Allen Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Tiara Bergquist Paradigm

2 rounds

Policy: This is my favorite style of debate. Please don't disappoint. Spreading is ok. Please be organized, because I like to flow the round. I will side with the negative until the affirmative proves the solvency of their plan thoroughly, burden lies on the affirmative to change the status quo, if a CP is ran, then I will decide who can prove solvency, efficacy and impact of their plan best. Be respectful, but don't be afraid to get into the debate, I like that.

Congress: I will judge based on the quality of the research, organization, overall presence in the room, and thorough understanding of the content. I like to be entertained and engaged throughout the round, so do something cool and find a way to stand out. Don't be afraid to be passionate during the round. It is convincing and that is your job.

Lincoln Douglas: Don't run a K unless you really know how to do it properly. I am fine with progressive or traditional debates. Spreading is fine. Tell me a story with your evidence, don't just read. Believe in what you are saying. Be passionate. Remember delivery should still apply in debate events. Don't bore me. Engage me. Convince me.

I will ask for you to include me on the email chain.

tiara.bergquist@apavegas.org

Brian Bourgon Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Steve Clemmons Paradigm

3 rounds

Steve Clemmons

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

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

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

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the authors intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. Proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but probability of me voting for it is low.

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS

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

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

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

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

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

CX/Crossfire

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

Evidence in PF

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

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

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Paradigm

2 rounds

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Additionally, if there is any issue with the room or pairing and you would like me to come with you to tabroom to request a change, let me know. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly before the round.

  1. I grant speaks based on the quality/explanation of your argumentation, not off of your presenting style. The only world in which your style impacts your speaks is if you are rude, condescending, or offensive, in which case I will drop you / give you a low point win depending on what the behavior is.
  2. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm). Debate the way that makes you feel happiest and most confident in your analytic skills
  3. ~tech over truth~ (this doesn't mean that you should stop reading warrants, fully extending arguments, or signposting)

  4. For the love of the ballot please weigh
  5. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
  6. If you extend an indict/think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
  7. I will evaluate any k or theory arguments to the best of my ability unless they are violent/exclusionary
  8. I presume for the first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise


Let me know if you have any questions

Ellen Du Paradigm

6 rounds

I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Susan Foley Paradigm

6 rounds

I have been a coach for 7 years at Campbell Hall School in California. I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech. When saying an author's name and year - slow down and separate it from the rest of the text.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity (please slow down when reading authors' names)

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it

- Read trigger warning or disclosure theory or barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Joaquin Galvan Paradigm

5 rounds

I debated during high school. Four years of policy debate and two years of Humorous Interpretation and Duo debate. I was the Sterling Scholar in Speech/ Debate for West High school in 2013 my senior year. I enjoy when an argument is carried through the round and well justified in why it should be a voter for me. If you explain to me why the argument should be a voter I’ll consider it. My primary language is English but I speak a few others conversationally. I graduated from the University of Utah in 2019 with a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology with a Minor in Modern Dance.

Don’t run Kritics if you’re use to debating the policy. If you can run a K then make sure you’ve got an Alt with impact whether they are in round or other. (Not meaning you otherize.......Zezek). I enjoy a good line by line and when my flows are clean it’s easy to see who the winners are going to be.
nicnehnemi tlan ixmatitica tlen nimechillia eltozquia tlen azteca quiamati Jesuscristo pan 2020. Don’t let speed intimidate you I’ve voted on all sorts of things; kritics, theory, topicality, framework, case , PICs, CPs, no solvency, and all combinations of the sorts.

Michael Harris Paradigm

4 rounds

Email: michaelgeorgeharris1@gmail.com

I did circuit LD for four years in high school and npda parli for four in college. I’ve been coaching pretty actively ever since 2013. I am currently the debate coach at Lynbrook in San Jose, where we do LD, PF, Parli, and Policy. I rotate between judging different events.

I’m not a fan of debaters reading cards for their entire speech with no analysis of their own. I think that’s very unstrategic – you are inviting judge intervention by not explaining to me at your earliest opportunity why your evidence is better than your opponent’s (This criticism mostly applies to LD in which there are fewer speeches).

I try not to think too hard about whether the claims advanced by both sides are actually true ‘in the real world.’ This is to avoid 'judge intervention' and because it's hard for a claim made in the condensed period of time in which a debate happens to fully mirror a state of affairs in the real world. Instead I tend to see debate as a logic game (based on the arguments being won, which other incompatible arguments get excluded from my flow?) This is simply my default way of looking at debate and you could explain to me in the round why this is a bad or flawed way of interpreting it.

I default that the aff should defend the topic unless they win a proactive reason that they don't have to.

I think good line by line in the debate is essential for me to fairly evaluate it. Don’t drop arguments. I understand that this is very hard to do a lot of the time. If you can’t respond to each individual argument due to time constraints, you should group arguments or at least weigh.

I'm fine with most styles of debate. In LD, my favorite rounds to watch are 'phil' rounds (rounds about the ethical framework, or the value criterion). I'm also fine with K, policy, and theory, however --

-if you’re reading a K, you should still engage the line by line in rebuttals

-in policy debates, I might get confused if there's too much evidence and not enough layering/overview/explanation

-if the abuse in your theory shell is tiny, please explain to me why that's still sufficient to vote for you (hardly anyone does this)

DISCLAIMER: There are a lot of really unclear and blippy debaters out there. In instances where I miss an argument or don't understand the basic claim being made due to unfamiliarity with terminology/the literature, I do not stress out about it -- I simply do not consider the argument in question. (How could I consider it if I wasn't sure what was being said?) The burden is on you as the presenter to make sure I'm keeping up.

Paul Hemeseth Paradigm

6 rounds

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

Farhat Kawsaree Paradigm

5 rounds

I will be flowing but I am a LAY judge. Treat me as such. I will not vote for you if you do not win your arguments; I will not vote for you if you blatantly extend through ink.

Moderate speed is fine.

Don't be rude, sexist, racist, etc.


Keep the debate civil, and have fun. Debate should be an enjoyable and educational event.


Brandon Komatsu Paradigm

4 rounds

Key Considerations:

  • Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.
  • Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.
  • Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.
  • Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.
  • In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

  • This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

Jamie Kuang Paradigm

4 rounds

Don't speak too fast. I would like you to give me a reason to vote for you. Be very clear on why your evidences are better. You can focus on the key augments instead of repeating all again. I generally do not give too high of speaker points. Whoever has a good impact of convincing me will get higher points.

Simon Lamsal Paradigm

6 rounds

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. | Debater

2nd-year Policy debater.

I prefer email over anything else.

simonlamsal@gmail.com

I did World Schools style debate and British Parliamentary in High School.

For PF and LD debaters, if you have specific questions, just email me.

Evaluation:

Debate is a game.

I will be a blank slate in every round.

I will evaluate any argument that you can execute and explain well.

I am not familiar with a lot of critical arguments but I will try my best to understand them.

AFF:

PLEASE do not forget your case. Always make sure you make sufficient arguments in the 2AC that will help you in the 1AR. Make sure you do a great job on the 1AR to make the 2NR's life difficult. Always extend the warrants of your cards. Saying "Extend Johnson 16" is not enough. I am not fond of critical affs at all. Permutations should be made clear and explained how it functions.

NEG:

Make sure you are splitting the block well. I do not want to hear the same arguments made by the 2NC in the 1NR. I am open to critical teams if they are explained and have specific links to the aff. If you do not extend your alt, I am most likely not vote for the neg. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but this should not discourage you as I feel any critical arguments that might not be clear can be cleared up by explaining the alt well.

Other notes.

Do not steal prep time.

Make sure you utilize cx well by asking relevant questions.

Clear and proper explanations are key to great speaker points

Please feel free to make analogies and jokes that are relevant to the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

It all about learning so if I do not vote for you, listen as to why.

Do not hesitate to ask questions to me after rounds.

Want good speaks? Keep me engaged!

If you keep on saying give me 30 speaker points, I might as well.

Ronald Litteral Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Mark Mabie Paradigm

4 rounds

*DON'T READ 900M PUSHED INTO POVERTY FROM A GLOBAL RECESSION IN FRONT OF ME. STOP USING IT AS A CRUCH FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. THE CARD LITERALLY NON-UNIQUES ITSELF.*

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 5 years since then - close to a full-time job. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

I will ALWAYS TRY to disclose even if the tournament tells me not to. It is my ethical duty as a debate instructor and judge to give you the best feedback I can after the round and increase your education.

Judge preferences that must be met:

When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debater’s in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Trimaan Malik Paradigm

My name is Trimaan Malik. I debated LD, PF, and Congress in high school. I was a policy debater for one semester for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

I am a pretty straightforward and easygoing judge. I care more about what you are saying than how well you speak. I look for a clear and concise road-map so everyone in the debate understands the arguments.

Please make sure you flow in policy. It is not a good sign when you respond to an argument that was not said in the round, but you saw it on the speech doc.

In PF debaters should have evidence to back up their claims. Even if they make amazing arguments their speeches hold no merit without evidence. They have to remain topical. PF is not the place to provide an "alternative". Just focus on the topic and you will be fine!

For LD I look for the value/value criterion and framework to see if it really applies to your arguments. I am not too strict about evidence in LD, but I am more of a traditional judge and I like to have analysis in the round. It is good to hear a piece of evidence, but I want to know how it applies to your arguments. Although I prefer classic LD debate, as a judge it is my responsibility to treat every round fairly regardless of my preferences but I prefer no spreading during the debates. I can still understand spreading, thanks to my debate class at UNLV (thanks Dr. Thompson!), but I would like to preserve some element of classic LD for progressive cases.

Most importantly, show respect to your opponent(s). I want to make sure the environment is comfortable for everyone so nobody feels like they were screwed over.

Sergio Martinez Paradigm

2 rounds

See record below.

Elizabeth Meerson Paradigm

2 rounds

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Cas Mulford Paradigm

3 rounds

hello! I debated all through high school, first at grantsville high and then rowland hall my senior year. currently, I debate at Lewis and Clark in Oregon, and on occasion I help coach at rowland hall. you are more than welcome to share your preferred pronouns before round, but only if you are comfortable doing so :)

my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

-weigh! This is most important for me. Use phrases like “their biggest impact in the round is X, our impact Y is more important because Z” if you don’t do this, that means I get to decide which teams impacts I like more (I will also be sad)

-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round. choose what’s most important and only go for that!

-this should go without saying, but ANY racist, homophobic, sexist or hateful comments or arguments will not only hurt your speaker points SEVERELY, you most likely can expect to lose.

-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses over any shitty card.

-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

how I determine speaker points:

-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks with me in the back of the room.

-I won’t be listening to cross ex, so if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that.

other parts of my paradigm that are slightly more technical:

-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

-speed is fine. if I can’t understand you, than you should slow down.

-road maps should be concise, youre telling me what sheets I should start on, not making arguments.

-terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary for it to be in final focus, unless second speaking rebuttal responded to it. i will be more likely to weight defense of it is in both first summary and final focus, but it’s not required.

-Gavin Serr was once my coach, so his paradigm is another good place to look for more info on how I feel about debate.

Aboo Nasar Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a lay judge. I will try my best to vote off of content based in the round. Presentation does still play a factor in my vote. Please have good warranting for your arguments in a way that makes sense to someone without research on the topic. There are a few things that I will immediately drop your team if you do.

-Being unnecessarily rude

-Speaking too fast under 250 wpm.

-Being abusive

-Fake evidence

Jeffrey Niemiec Paradigm

4 rounds

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Nate Odenkirk Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated PF for Oakwood Secondary School from 2013-2017 on the national circuit, and now coach for them.

If you make more sense than your opponent I'll probably vote for you. I am truth > tech but a great debater shouldn't sacrifice one for the other. I like "old tymey" PF when persuasion/presentation mattered.

Weigh and have a narrative. cross ex matters.

I almost never vote on political efficacy arguments.

Jen Pecasting Paradigm

6 rounds

No spreading or rude/offensive behavior, please.

I prefer quality argument(s) over quantity.

Kyle Peng Paradigm

6 rounds

School Affiliation: Torrey Pines High School

Experience: I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging PF

In Round

I try to have average speaks be around 27.5-28. I will drop you if you are rude, racist, sexist, etc.

Please speak clearly at a moderate speed, and please don’t use too much jargon. You can also look at my face to see if I am confused or lost so that you can slow down or explain a little more.

I won’t have as much knowledge about the topic like debaters will, so please explain everything well.

I will be take notes but I will be trying to listen more to the arguments to understand them better.

Angelo Robledo Paradigm

4 rounds

(Updated for 2019/2020 season)

4 years competing in LD, 3 years coaching. Anthropology/Philosophy major at UNLV.

If you're in a rush read 'Overview' plus what's in bold. Largely applies to both LD and PF. Specifics for each event are at the end

Overview: I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Give me probability, please. Crazy link chains to nuke war are USUALLY slippery slope fallacies as bad as, "If we allow gay marriage, next we'll be allowing turtle marriage." If I stop flowing and start staring at you it means either you made your point and you need to move on, or I have no clue what you're saying.

"Ok, sure" and "sure" are some of the most annoying phrases spoken during Cross-Ex. Please avoid them.

Your first line of attack in a rebuttal should be a logical one. Don't reach for the cards right away, you should be able to logically attack arguments card-less. (see 'Pro-tips' at the bottom).

Be a debater, not a competitive librarian. While arguments are 'claim, warrant, impact,' more importantly arguments are 'premises, conclusions'. You need to understand whether or not you (or your opponent) are making deductive or inductive arguments, what that means for the round, and whether or not they are succeeding at valid and sound (in the case of deductive), or strong (in the case of inductive) arguments. If you don't know what these terms mean, what have you been doing in debate for the past 3+ years? Please don't tell me you 'understand and can run Nietzsche' but don't know what formal logic is!

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I put my pen down. At the end of the day this is a communication activity, please treat it as such.

Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions. Cross-ex isn't flowed. If you want something to stick, bring it up in a speech. That being said, cross-ex can definitely help speaker points.

Speaker points: I pivot off of 28.5

I lean truth over tech because debate is educational and meant to train future leaders and policy-makers by honoring free speech, discourse, and logic as paragons of democracy. The real world is not a game and only sound, logical solutions have ever changed it for the better.

Pro-tips: At least one logical fallacy happens every round. Find it and point it out (appeal to authority is most common, see "Expert Opinion" below). If you know the Latin name, even better.

If you commit a formal fallacy (Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent) I will judge you harshly, but not as harshly as I would judge you if your opponent commits it and you fail to call them out. Again, be a debater, not a competitive librarian.

In case you need a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

References to the show The West Wing will score you brownie points and respect. Also, talk to me about music sampling out of round.

As usual, if you're racist, sexist, abelist, or otherwise obscenely rude expect an auto-drop and low speaks.

For LD:

This explains my views on LD more eloquently than I ever could, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LD%20Baldwin%20LD%201-03.pdf

That being said here are some specifics

While I accept and understand some levels of progressivism, I'm still a value/trad LD'er at heart. At least try to fake that you're understanding and thinking about the philosophical underpinnings that the resolution is aiming for, even if you couldn't care less and just want LD to be solo CX.

YOU CAN'T VALUE MORALITY. MORALITY IS JUST THE CONCEPT OF GOOD AND BAD, BUT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD. Your value needs to be a moral in and of itself, not morality as a whole. Thus your Value can be Life, Justice, Fairness, Equality, Education, etc. depending on what your contentions uphold. Your value criterion MEASURES that value, explicitly or implicitly demonstrating a deontological or consequential ethical position. When I hear 'My value is morality,' I immediately assume you do not actually understand what morality, or a value, is.

Plans: I will accept a case which offers some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being very different from Policy—I am not a fan of very narrow and specific plans in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with some idea the other side never thought of, that’s not ok.

Kritiks: I need really clear impacts to vote on K's. Refer to this http://nsdupdate.com/2014/in-defense-of-topical-switch-side-debate/

Values/Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. See my morality rant above ^^^

Expert Opinion: When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There are informed opinions (meaning supported by strong logic), but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied, as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.

For PF, something I see too often; skewing of statistics. It usually happened like this: "X will cause a 400% increase in Y!!" when the card says an increase from 1% to 4%. Yes, that is technically a 400% increase, but that's super shady. I'm a bit of a statistics nerd so don't do this.

Gabe Rusk Paradigm

2 rounds

PF Paradigm 2019-2020 Season:

UNLV, Stanford, Cal RR, and Berkeley:

- Don't mix up Medicaid and Medicare. Here is an easy reminder: Aid the poor and care for the old.

- Don't mix up the Federal funds interest rate with the interest rates for bonds. When folks discuss the "Feds increasing the interest rates" it's referring to the Federal funds rate. That may effect bond yield rates later but not the same thing.

- There is a lot debate on the per capita spending in either world. As in, the amount of cash folks get access to in the Aff world is 12k but the amount of benefits is worth 21k or 31k etc. I need a good analysis here as to why your per capita average is the best in the round. I really don't appreciate the debates trying to be boiled down to our per capita average is larger than yours so we win. If you explain why your per capita analysis is correct I'm down but this arithmetic game is super reductive if not done right.

- If you are running arguments with TW or content warnings please make sure they have opt-out options for competitors for it truly to be a TW or content warning.

Big Things

  • What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
  • Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
  • Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
  • I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical and/or theoretical roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become more tired of bad or unfleshed out theory debates in PF. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 20 rounds or so I've judged with theory as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced theory in the round 6 of 20 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer topic specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.

Little Things

  • What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.
  • If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
  • Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
  • Calling for cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Smh y'all.
  • If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
  • My favorite question in cx is: Why?
  • My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
  • Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
  • Don't read definitions if the judge is familiar with the topic. Waste of time.
  • I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
  • I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative brightlines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
  • If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
  • Offtime road maps fine
  • Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao.
  • Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me!
  • To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/

Gabe Rusk

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

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

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

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

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

Charles Schletzbaum Paradigm

6 rounds

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate

PHYSICS TEACHER


History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach


(Important note, I have noticed I have been getting a little triggered when people completely misconstrue how some MTW programs work. Please make sure you know how they work before you make some sometimes uninformed assertions about them)

In all events: Assume if the resolution is true, then I'm voting aff. If it is not proven, then I'm voting neg, and unless told explicitly otherwise or the gymnastically twisted resolutions, tie goes against "taking an action" (presumption/perceived aff burden to prove the res).

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:


While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, as I have seen a bizarre one once, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.


I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin america topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on T if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.


LD (p.s. Sep/oct 2016 pronounce NEW-CLEE-ERR *sigh*)

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event I judge. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments. It didn't work for the racism k kids in policy in the movie resolved, and drop the debater because fairness is a voter won't work either in my round (for example)

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW.....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.


I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.



GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Gavin Serr Paradigm

1 rounds

Bio:

Director of Speech and Debate at Park City (UT)

If you're the type of person who think this matters (it doesn't), I qualified to the TOC in PF during high school.

Musings:

It's not an argument without a warrant.

Critical arguments are underused and generally mishandled.

Weighing is super important, but it's a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Defense is sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline; it isn't if it does.

Your speaks will be dramatically higher if you send speech docs.

'Evidence' only counts if it's a cut card.

Crossfire is the worst part of PF. You will be rewarded for making it productive/not annoying.

Be warned: I have aged several decades since graduating high school. I am now grumpy. I will casually give you 26s for irritating me, even if you probably deserve 29s.

I usually vote for the team that is less annoying.

Send me a Facebook message if you have specific questions. You can also peruse the following paradigms for more examples of judges/coaches that have influenced my thinking:

Christian Vazquez, Robbie Allison, Marybeth Ehlbeck, Cale McCrary, Mike Shackelford, Bryce Piotrowski, Ilana Cuello-Wolffe, Jack Gladson, and Nathan Witkin.

Raj Soni Paradigm

6 rounds

I never did Debate in high school, but this will be my 7th year of judging public forum. I have judged at Nationals and some national circuit tournaments. However, I still like to be treated like a lay judge, even when I take a lot of notes. That means clearly signposting all arguments that you want to be considered and concisely weighing them during summary and final focus. If I don't understand the argument or how a response is actually responsive, I can't consider it. Additionally, I don't like arguments that are clearly absurd. That seems vague, but if your evidence says what you say it says then your argument should make logical sense to me. I will consider them if no adequate response is made, but my bar for level of response is lower for those types of arguments. Finally, I'm not very familiar with any theory or rule violation type arguments, so keep that in mind. I am open to them, but you will need to explain them extremely well.

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

Anastacia Tennant Paradigm

Hi, I’m Ana (she/her)

background:

I debated for Copper Hills for three years. I did a little bit of everything debate wise throughout my high school career, but mostly did LD.

tl;dr

  • if you read arguments about sexual violence in any context please provide a tw *
  • please include me on the email chain anastacia.tennant@yahoo.com
  • tech > truth; any arguments that require judge intervention will probs get you dropped
  • depth > breadth is great in 9/10 instances
  • flex prep is fine
  • cx is important. i will flow it but if you want to win on an arg from cx, definitely bring it up in future speeches
  • pls sign post. it truly makes my life easier
  • in your 2ar/2nr write my ballot for me, tell me why you believe you should win. what does a world with your name on the ballot look like. in other words, please be completely clear as to why you are winning.
  • you can run pretty much whatever argument you’d like to in front of me. i enjoy a k debate (if it’s done properly), performance debate is my fav, but i’m also down with some traditional ol’ args. [with that said, power differentials / power protected rounds happen sometimes and if you can tell you are more well versed than your opponent and are belittling, i will deck your speaks. it doesn’t help anyone and debate is supposed to be an inclusive space]

extended version:

  • my fav debates to watch are performance (but if you do this, make sure to carry it through and explain why you’re winning on it, this is especially important in LD where with such short speech times, the important things can get lost), a properly done K debate, pretty much any kind of theory (unless it’s obscure and is a waste of time for the aff team - these debates get boring to watch)

* i also dig traditional debate as i did a lot of it in hs but if you’re gonna go traditional, please try to make it interesting :)

so, essentially

CPs/PICs/DAs/plan texts:

cool beans

K debate or performance debate:

extra cool beans

  • tech > truth extended: this is my outlook to an extent, if you abuse the tech bit (this especially goes for the locals) by having way too much breadth > depth and then belittling your opponent for not catching it all, that’s super meh
  • flex prep is actually super interesting, you can definitely use your prep time to ask your opponent more questions, especially if this helps you get into a position you need to be in for your next rebuttal
  • on that note, as i mentioned before, cx is super important in a debate round - definitely try to use it to get yourself into a better situation in the debate round. you should probably bring up things that you ask in cx in your rebuttals if your opponent answers the way that you want them to. also, please finish your thought even if the timer goes off mid-answer or mid-question
  • don’t be exclusive in the debate space continued: a lil bit of dominance in round never hurt anybody, but nobody gains anything by extensive unnecessary aggression or making the round inaccessible to your opponent in any way (whether it be using jargon that they obvi don’t understand, going at a speed that they can’t process, using a highlight color that they can’t see, using demeaning language, or other things along those lines). you just look mean and that’s one of the many reasons that people leave the community

personal things:

  • i don’t think it’s necessary for you to make eye contact if you’re uncomfortable with it, i will not dock your speaks
  • on that note, i’m not very expressive unless you make a super solid point or say something i absolutely do not buy. thus, looking at my face throughout the debate doesn’t do much as far as predicting the ballot
  • definitions are usually super unnecessary, i can almost guarantee that your opponent and i are familiar with the words “should, “ought,” and “nuclear”
  • i could not care less where you sit in the room as long as you’re comfortable
  • i’m happy to answer any questions about my decision after the debate is over / give further critiques if needed - but after we all leave the room, email me about it

This shouldn’t have to be said - but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or I will drop you and substantially deck your speaks.

Sanjim Uppal Paradigm

4 rounds

i love MVLA and basis so freaking much omg. also im sad literally every topic requires some econ knowledge and i am not good at econ so please explain econ things to me like i am 5 years old. i agree with everything here

i always disclose + give RFD. you can talk to me about the round later, message me on fb or email (sanjim.uppal@gmail.com) if you have questions. please come into the round w/ pre-flows done

i don't care what you wear in round. if you do anything blatantly rude, sexist, racist, abusive, etc., i'll drop you. don't be afraid to be aggressive if you're a girl!!

i won't vote for args that don't make sense, and my facial expressions will usually reflect that

"important" things

please do comparative analysis, meta/weighing + impact calc, signposting, properly extend things (not just card names), ideally frontline, defense is sticky (but good to have anyways if important). first summary needs defense if second rebuttal frontlined

I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc (Zhu 2019).

the faster you speak, the worse my flow will be. i don't like rounds that are super tech

i am tech > truth but if you don’t extend warrants and link stories don’t expect me to do the work for you and evaluate the arg

i'm not well-versed with K/theory debate and don't know how to properly evaluate it, but (and i say this with great hesitation) i'm open to hearing it in a round -- just explain it super well. more importantly, you better have discussed this with your opponents and only choose to run theory if EVERYONE in the round is 100% comfortable with it. everyone seems to love this whole "omg listen to my BS warranting and pick me up because im """changing the debate space""" when in reality i just want a cheap win and/or 30 speaks and continue scaring teams for no reason because this type of argumentation is exactly what makes PF inaccessible!!!!!" but as u might be able to tell, i'm not a fan at ALL.

if u are a team of 2 dudes who are not-minorities in debate and are delusional enough to read 30 speaks theory and claim u will SOLVE discrimination..... lets just say u wont be getting anything near 30 speaks

i don’t pay attention during cx. in the rare case that i do, it has no impact on the outcome of the round

avg speaks are ~28, goes up if u are clean on the flow + make strategic decisions + lay appeal (its called speaker points for a reason ok), goes down if you're rude or ur speeches are messy. +2 speaks for GT dave's guava goddess kombucha or anything else healthy/vegan. -0.5 speaks for making me wait for u to preflow.

evidence

there are 2 instances where i will call for a card: if you tell me to (in a speech), or if it sounds too good to be true. if whatever cards i call for are powertagged/misconstrued, i drop the cards. if it's *heavily* misconstrued/blatantly made up and a deciding factor in the round, i drop the team + give lowest speaks possible.

if my own kids aren't following evidence standards, lmk immediately and i'll handle it

in conclusion

please ask any questions u have about my RFD/paradigm and i'll be happy to answer them. don't shake my hand bc i don't want to get sick

postrounding

If you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks and I'll be glad I didn't vote for the entitled team. but if you're genuinely curious about something, feel free to ask bc i am here to help

works cited

Brian Zhu, 08-05-2019, "Tabroom.com," No Publication, https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=brian&search_last=zhu

Laurenn Vives Paradigm

3 rounds

- ok fine I’ll flow...just for you...

- Truth over tech. fight me

- Run any arguments you want, BUT if you run Ks/Theory/other progressive arguments incorrectly I will probably drop you

- I did PF in high school and now coach

- Not down for spreading or speaking fast

- THE KEY TO MY BALLOT IS SIMPLIFICATION. literally please.

- just because i did debate doesn't mean i can read your mind! tell me where to vote

- Speaks are subjective so i probably wont give lower than a 28. easy 30? run good args and be entertaining.

- Be aggressive!!!!! its funny. Not disrespectful

- dOeS fiRsT sUmMarY hAvE tO pULL thRoUgH deFeNSe omg no luv. dont worry. You're doing great

- Dont say discriminatory things they are bad arguments and you will lose

Reghu Warrier Paradigm

1 rounds

  1. Background: I am a parent judge with about one year of judging experience, only at local tournaments. Please treat me like a lay judge, and attempt to convince me as such.

  2. Speed: I can only handle up to moderate speed; if you start speaking too fast, mumbling, or spreading, I will raise my hand and stop writing. Continuing to do so after I have indicated an issue in your speaking style means that I won’t be able to follow your arguments.

  3. Clarity: Please signpost and directly reference which points you are extending or refuting in order to keep the round clear and organized. This makes my job easier and prevents arguments from getting muddled or lost.

  4. Argumentation:

    1. For the most part, I will evaluate all arguments in the debate round in isolation from my personal beliefs. However, make sure all of your arguments are logically sound. Ridiculous responses are sufficient to ridiculous arguments.

    2. Please weigh. I understand that both teams will have something going for them by the end of the round. Give me reasons why I should prefer your side over the opponents, especially when the impacts are drastically different (ex: Environmental harm vs. Economic growth) and do direct comparison; Otherwise, I’ll decide which one I think is more important and chances are you won’t like my decision

    3. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be evaluated.

  5. Evidence:

    1. Please use prep time when looking at evidence. You don’t need to use prep while searching for evidence, but you must use it while reading the opponent’s evidence.

    2. I will only call for evidence at the end of the round if either team tells me to throughout the course of the round.

  6. Misc:

    1. Be respectful; nothing irritates me more than a rude or condescending tone when speaking

    2. Any sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks will get you automatically dropped and 20 speaker points

    3. Have fun!

Anna Williams Paradigm

6 rounds

In-round Preferences:

  • Weigh.
  • Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
  • Weigh.
  • Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
  • I’m not opposed to critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
  • Weigh.
  • Please be consistent with your warranting.
  • Offense must be in summary and final focus.
  • Weigh
  • Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

  • I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
  • Do not steal prep time.
  • Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
  • Weigh.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Kelly Yeates Paradigm

5 rounds

This is my first tournament judging PF. I have spent time researching the topic and am familiar with the resolution. It is really important that you sign post for me. I will be flowing the debate, but please be mindful that I am still getting used to the format, so do not spread.

In-round preferences:

Please keep it to a traditional PF speed. I cannot keep up with spreading.

Please signpost - it makes it much easier to flow.

I'm not opposed to critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren't terribly familiar with K debate or literature.

I'll weigh the impact. Make it clear.

I probably won't understand your arguments if you're not consistent with your warranting.

Offense must be in summary and final focus.

Alex Zavala Paradigm

6 rounds

Any questions? Email me: alexandrozavala@outlook.com

Hi! My name is Alex Zavala. I did Public Forum for 4 years and competed on the national circuit for 3. I was okay at PF, I guess.

I like:

- When arguments make sense. What that means is clear warranting and presenting a compelling narrative on your side. In an ideal world, tech = truth. But, if I were to lean a certain way, it's probably truth > tech.

- When debaters signpost effectively. If I don't know where you are on the flow, then my flow is gonna be a mess. That might work to your advantage, but I will likely be annoyed.

- When your impacts don't just sit there. I will probably not vote for you if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis. If you love scope, probability, magnitude, strength of link, clarity of link/impact, reversibility, I'll probably love you.

- When second rebuttal frontlines effectively.

- When your evidences comes with ETHOS. "According to [author's name]" means nothing, some evidence qualifications would be nice.

- When you’re able to simplify arguments by FF.

- WHEN YOU PREFLOW BEFORE ROUND OK

I don't like:

- When debaters contribute to structural oppression by being ignorant. Please, just don't.

- When debaters actively lie. Poorly extrapolating evidence. "They never responded to ______" when they, like, clearly did.

I'm okay with speed, but my flow will probably suffer as a result.

I'll call for evidence that sounds way too good to be true or if I'm explicitly told to call for evidence in round.

Debate is a game--have fun with it without being a jerk. :)

Yan Zhang Paradigm

4 rounds

Parent Judge/New Assistant Coach

- Please no spreading/keep it conversational.

- Please not use debate jargon, real world terminology.

- Please make the debate as understandable and as easy to follow as possible

- I have background knowledge in this area, but if it is not said during the round, I will not vote on it.

- Make all of your analysis explicit, I will not connect the dots for you.

Thank you!