Tabroom.com

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Public Forum Debate JV Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Elizabeth Adler The Chapin School

Aarushi Agarwal The Bronx High School Of Science

Nausheen Ahmad Lake Highland Preparatory School

Adam Alamy Fairmont Prep

Caspar Arbeeny Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Last changed on Sat April 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM EDT

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

One team tells me to.
I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Roland Au-Yeung Summit HS

Samir Bajaj The Quarry Lane School

Shelly Bajaj The Quarry Lane School

Radhika Barrett Maret School

Nicholas Bayer Trinity School

Avi Berg The Dalton School

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:36 AM EDT

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Rebecca Bratter NSU University School

Erica Brown Bethesda Chevy Chase 8 rounds

Adam Carlisle Delbarton School

Ceming Chao The Bronx High School Of Science

Mary Chen The Dalton School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 5:42 AM EDT

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Pramod Chivate Princeton

Jason Collins Hawken

Last changed on Sun April 24, 2022 at 5:32 AM EDT

I competed in mostly Congress and extemp in high school, but I dabbled in PF. I also have a tiny bit of Policy and Worlds experience. Since graduating high school, I have judged locally in Northeast Ohio and on the Circuit (for Hawken), mostly in PF and LD but also a little Congress, since Fall of 2018. Here are some thoughts; I often update them after a tournament if something stands out to me.

Congress:

I flow Congress rounds, and I expect you to treat it like a debate event. I won't rank you if you're not a good speaker/presenter, but you also won't rank if you're not a good debater.

The top people on my ballot will need to do a few things:

1) Know your place in the debate. Are you giving a 1A or 1N? Set up the issue and relate it to the bill. Early-Middle of the round? You can give me a new point or two, but make sure you're refuting (and, for the record, just name-dropping somebody doesn't count as refuting). Late-middle? You should be mostly refuting. Last? Crystalize, summarize.

2) Show me that you're versatile. All other things equal, I will rank the person that gave an early and a late speech (see Point #1) higher than the person who gave two early speeches or two late speeches. That being said, I will probably think more of you if you give two late speeches vs two early speeches, because I think refutation is more impressive than a canned speech.

3) This line appears in my paradigm for every debate event I judge: You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much.

4) Impact.

5) Be good at answering questions. Be good at asking questions. Do both things consistently.

6) Don't be a jerk. I'm not going to describe what being a jerk entails, but you know it when you see it.

I'm also more than happy to rank POs, and I do it often. I judge the PO in the context of the round, and will rank anyone (often highly) if they maintain control of the round and are fair and quick. I really can't give more detail than this, but you know who's a good PO and who's not.

PF:

Full disclosure: I loved PF in high school, but I've cooled on it a bit as a judge for one reason: I cannot stand the debates that come down to cards, args, and impacts that don't clash or aren't weighed. There is too much talking at each other that goes on in PF, to win you need to make sure you clash and tell me why you beat your opponent. You'd think this goes without saying, and I guarantee that many of you reading this think you don't do this, but I promise many of you will. I need you to do impact calculus. I need you to tell my why your card is better than your opponents' if they clash. I want to do as little work as possible, so clearly tell me why you win. Also, don't extend through ink--this tends to be something PFers struggle with a lot.

Framework is important, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the round. You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much. Impacts are important, I want to see weighing and impact calc. I like to vote on impacts. Tell me a story in FF about why you win.

For the record, I flow and can handle speed. I won't be happy if you spread, but short of that I'm fine. I love CX, but I probably won't flow it, if there's something important bring it up in your speech or I likely won't weigh it. I won't ever call for a card unless you tell me to and tell me why; if you tell me to call for a card and there was no good reason for it I'll be unhappy.

Emma Davis The Spence School

Alexander Disler Bergen County Academies

Amulya Donthi James Logan High School

Last changed on Thu February 3, 2022 at 2:02 AM PDT

Hello!

I’m very excited to be judging you today. I competed for 4+ years in a variety of events, but mainly PF, Congress, and speech events like OI, Expos, and Extemp. In college, I competed for 3 years on the collegiate Model UN circuit. As for my judging history, I’ve judged regularly ever since I graduated high school and have had the opportunity to judge most events. Here are a couple things that I look for:

Debaters: I like off-time roadmaps, it helps with signposting and keeps my flow clean. I do flow and keep track of arguments and evidence but that doesn’t mean you can disregard speaking style, eloquence, etc. The winner of a round should be the better speaker AND have the best arguments. Make sure you’re impacting your arguments and carry these impacts throughout the round. It makes my job a lot easier and then I won’t consider them as dropped. If you have a standard or value criterion, make sure to tie back your arguments to it (it should act as a thesis to your arguments). If you do not have a standard/VC and your opponent does, I will be forced to weigh the round on their standard unless you give me promising reasons why I shouldn’t. When I was debating, I used to be able to keep up with full speed spreading. I can no longer do this so please do not spread. You may speak quickly but if I’m not able to keep up on the flow, I’m going to miss your arguments and it will only hurt you. I don’t understand theory shells, Ks, or any other obscure parts of debate. Do not include them in your speeches because I will disregard them. Be kind and respectful during CX. I really hate when people consistently talk over others or end up yelling in rounds. You can have the same debate respectfully and calmly.

Speech: Make sure you’re staying in time and do not overly dramatize parts of your speech. For extempers, try your best to dedicate equal amounts of time to each of your points and be clear with your transitions.

Above all, please just be mature, respectful, and have fun!

Maria Duda-Smith Regis High School

Sonni Efron Bethesda Chevy Chase 8 rounds

Alex Ellerstein The Bronx High School Of Science

Lauren Festa Boca Raton Community High School

Claire Franco Har-Ber High School 8 rounds None

Hong Gao Winston Churchill High School

Alyson Hamel Flintridge Preparatory

Matthew Hanson The Nueva School

Holton Hennrich Park City

Helen Herrick The Spence School

Mackenzie Hirsh NSU University School

Ravi Jagannathan Dublin High

John Jai Maret School

Mike Jones Regis High School

Laura Kane Regis High School 8 rounds

Akira Kawamura The Bronx High School Of Science

Sonya Kella Winston Churchill High School

Julia Kennedy Poly Prep Country Day School

Vanessa Kjeldsen Milton Academy

inna koehler The Spence School

Shweta Kondapi Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 10:03 AM EDT

hii i'm shweta

policy/pf/ld Love Parrot

- quick notes: i debated policy for 4 yrs @lexington high school, have next to no pf/ld/policy topic knowledge (for these topics), am comfortable with speed, and am probably going to be fine with whatever you do (generally tabula rasa).

specifics

policy

- i generally lean tech>truth

- From Andrea's paradigm: Just please clearly delineate a ballot for me in the 2A/2N. Don't just extend arguments, explain why they're important to the round and weigh.

- I love framework debates and probably lean neg (55-45). However, I have also voted on/read kaffs so please don't let this scare you off of reading them. i'd much prefer familiarity w/ your kaff (esp if it has a creative/strategic topic connection! big fan of those affs) than reading a rando policy one. Fairness is an impact.

- tabula rasa for everything else

- i'm generally fine for arguments that overlap with policy (k's/larp)^all of that holds true

- phil: not familiar with them in the context of debate but i'm a phil major so i'm generally familiar with the arguments! feel free as long as you're linking args and weighing back to your framework, to quote andrea

- not super familiar with theory but can judge it

- tricks: please do not/if you do please please explain them. theoretically wouldn't mind judging them but i don't really have experience with/really understand them.

- anything is fine, genuinely tabula rasa

- clash!

- add me to the email chain- kondapidebate@gmail.com

- stole this from andrea's paradigm but *IMPORTANT* - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning, I won't hesitate to auto drop you and give zero speaks. also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language because i will tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse. Also, please be polite to your opponents- do not be rude in the name of being assertive.

Lourdes Lawrence West Broward High School

Joshua Lee Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Last changed on Wed July 27, 2022 at 4:55 AM EDT

Hi there!

I debated for Acton-Boxborough for four years on the national/local circuit.

I consider myself a "mostly flow" judge because I can flow but I have a hard time doing so when the debate gets fast. Please speak at a moderate speed.

Just a few notes:

1. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing. If you're going too fast for me, I will let you know after the speech and ask you for the speech document.

2. I prefer good warranting and well-explained responses over fast and efficient rebuttals, and this will weigh somewhat in my speaker point calculations. Similarly, I am more likely to vote on the argument that has been explained well throughout the round than a turn you didn't really warrant or weigh in rebuttal that you blow up in final focus. So, if you read a turn for ten seconds in rebuttal about how X leads to economic decline and then in summary it becomes a recession and final focus it becomes 900 million people in poverty, I will still only evaluate what you said in the rebuttal - i.e. some vague decline in economic activity.

3. Your speaks will also depend a lot on the way you speak and how convincing you are. Persuasiveness is subjective but so is debate in general, and I think "public forum debate" is supposed to value speaking ability as well.

4. Crossfire is binding.

5. 2nd Rebuttal must frontline turns; otherwise, they are dropped. I also am not a fan of disads in EITHER first or second rebuttal, but you can probably trick me into thinking a disad is a turn in first rebuttal, as long as it is somewhat responsive to the opponent's case.

6. I won't call for evidence unless if it is challenged. Moreover, if I think the evidence indicts itself later on in the pdf, I will ask you about the indict just in case you have that indict frontlined - I believe that specific warranting is more important, and I understand that not all evidence is perfect and that some teams often have frontlines prepared to their evidence.

7. I think weighing is very powerful, but I have a high threshold for it. Weighing with cards/quantifications is better, and no new weighing allowed in final focus. However, weighing is sticky, so if first or second rebuttal establishes weighing that is dropped in first or second summary, then that can be extended into the final focus.

8. I am not familiar with progressive arguments. Running them in front of me is risky, but if you're feeling lucky you could try.

Lisa Liao Boston Latin School 8 rounds None

Ling Liu Concord Carlisle High School

Jian Lock Newton South High School

Julia Lu Summit HS

Anna Maria Mangafas The Bronx High School Of Science

Venkatesh Mani Unionville

Luis Maranga Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Ruby Marsh The Dalton School

Kathleen McCabe The Spence School

Don McFadden Hawken

Kella Merlain-Moffatt Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches

Rabbul Mirza Thomas Jefferson HSST

Ashish Mittal Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Kate Muntzner Trinity School

Alex Nagin Horace Mann High School

Last changed on Mon April 5, 2021 at 7:51 AM EDT

ZOOM FOR APRIL 6th:

Alex Nagin is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Alex Nagin's Personal Meeting Room

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/3514777362?pwd=RWEyb3gxS2dFWG96VDFVOVR6d3I4dz09

Meeting ID: 351 477 7362

Passcode: 1jW4Iu

National University of Mongolia '26

Rhodes Scholar, Harvard Dentistry graduate, Deputy National Security advisor.

Before I get into any part of this paradigm, if you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, or anything else that targets someone's identity, you will be dropped, no questions asked.

I'm down for weird/niche arguments, anything can win if you weigh it well. Also, I think theory/K's are fine as long as they are used to actually advance and develop our understanding of why certain aspects of debate/the resolution are flawed and not because you think it's an easier path to my ballot.

Please signpost clearly so I know where you are on the flow. Extend, and do comparative weighing/analysis too. It's not helpful to me if you just say that you're winning the round because you impact to more people.

Be careful about frontlining every turn that the other teams read, if its a really messy round that neither team is really winning I may be inclined to vote on a turn/de-link that was dropped in summary.

truth>tech. Not many judges have this philosophy (maybe some parent ones do) but I believe strongly in it. Debate should be an educational activity that assesses world topics on a realistic level. NSDA selects resolutions that have true arguments on both sides that can win you the round. Evaluating rounds on simply tech is bad for education and leads debaters down rabbit holes that aren't constructive to building an intellectual understanding of the resolution at hand.

Please note that I really hate when debaters go too hard on perceptual dominance in CX. Just have a fair and civil discussion about why you think their arguments are flawed.

Default speaks 28.5

Bubble tea references IN SPEECH +0.5 speaker points.

Mongolia references are an instant 30. No I'm not kidding. I am fascinated with the country and I would like you to incorporate it into your speech. However, I will only give you a 30 if I feel this is the case. I'm not afraid of low point wins.

Don't:

- Scream

- Postround

- Be annoying

- Talk over people

- Say "game over"

Also I agree with everything in Chuck Stubbins' Paradigm:

"I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE HIGH FALUTIN' THINGS Y'ALL TALKIN' ABOUT BUT I CAN TELL YOU I AM GREATLY CONCERNED WITH HOW THESE THINGS IMPACT THE BUS ROUTE I GOTTA DRIVE AT 4:45AM EVERY MORNIN' TO GET THESE KIDS TO SCHOOL

LOT OF KIDS TALK ABOUT TEA, WHICH IS FINE WITH ME AS LONG AS YOU BOILED IT TO LET ALL THE SUGAR GET IN THERE OR ELSE I DON'T WANT IT

I HAVEN'T HAD A PERM SINCE KENNY LOGGINS SANG DANGER ZONE AT MY WEDDING, SO I AM UNFAMILIAR AT BEST

I AM OPEN TO CRITIQUE, BUT I MUST SAY THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN HELPIN' A MAN AND LEAVIN' HIM TO FEND FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST A PACK OF FERAL HOGS WITHOUT PROPER ASSISTANCE *RIP BARTHOLOMEW "SCOOTER" JENKINS* AS SUCH MY TOLERANCE FOR ANY RABBLE ROUSIN' WITH THE CRITICISMS IS QUITE LOW OUT OF RESPECT TO THE JENKINS FAMILY, LORD BLESS

MY BUS HAS A GOVERNOR ON IT LIMITING ME TO A ROBUST SPEED OF 55 MILES AN HOUR, IF YOU'RE READING SO FAST AS TO GET THROUGH THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE I CAN MAKE IT THROUGH A LOOP IN THE BUS DROP OFF, YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST.

NO LOLLYGAGGIN', DILLYDALLYIN', BUMBLESCOOTIN', KNICKER-KNOTTIN', EGG-SUCKIN', DILL-PICKLIN', GOOSE-GETTIN', HOT DOGGIN' OR HATE SPEECHIN' OF ANY KIND. WORLD FULL OF PLENTY OF RASCALS AND DEMONS, YA AIN'T GOTTA BE ONE OF 'EM GOD BLESS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESTIGE OF LEARNING HOW YOUR ARGUMENTS IMPACT MY WORLD OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND WISH YOU THE MOST HIGHEST OF PRAISE UNDER THE SUN.

Y'ALL STAY FINER THAN A FROG'S HAIR SPLIT THREE WAYS NOW."

Rama Neti Sharon None

Ashley Nguyen Charlotte Latin School

Olivia Northcutt-Wyly Riverdale Country School

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 8:51 AM PDT

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

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

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

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

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

Susan Orlowski American Heritage Plantation HS 8 rounds

Ashok Paramasivan Mission San Jose High School

Dharmesh Patel The Quarry Lane School

kirtan patel Taipei American School

Ken Posner Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches

Adithya Raajkumar Chelmsford High School

Jill Ratzan American Heritage Plantation HS

Seema Razdan Unionville

Michael Reisman The Bronx High School Of Science

Christian Rodriguez Dwight-Englewood School

Vered Rosen Newton South High School

Divya Sarma The Bronx High School Of Science

Raveena Sarwal Providence High School

Last changed on Sat January 23, 2021 at 3:53 AM EDT

Update for Peninsula 2021: I am sick and hence will have my camera off. I would especially appreciate it if you kept your own time and made me speak as less as possible. I would also appreciate if you send your case to rsarwal@gmail.com with your team code on the subject line so I can follow better. Apologies for the inconvenience, have fun debating!

Hey y'all. (If you see a lot of debate jargon here, blame it on my son).

I am a parent judge but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. So disclaimer if you're gonna try and go full "lay" or think I'm going to let an argument past me, you're wrong. However, don't start running K's, Theory Shells or any other of that progressive stuff because if you are reading this you very well know this is a traditional local tournament.

Preferences-

SPEAKING- Be clear, concise. Don't be mean. That's the main gist. If you can't speak in the best way or you have a speaking impairment, don't worry! All I should see is you trying.

-Speaker Points

30- You spoke really well. You demonstrated a well-versed understanding of the topics. You won all the arguments, and it seems as if the world relies on this ballot. You made me smile and gave me new insight.

29- You were excellent. Only very minor flaws, maybe in just not extending an impact or not explaining values that well. Other than that, you were pretty solid.

28- I see a lot of potential. You may lack in certain areas but you put up a, if not good, then reasonable fight.

27- You had a reasonable case. You couldn't defend your case, perhaps only one or two arguments. No solid offense but tried.

26- You need to go over the resolution again, understand it well. Learn to give voter issue, impacts, explain values.

**BELOW a 26**- If you were mean, super mean, violated rules like had a evidence violation or were 'super duper really you should learn how to behave' mean.

VALUES- I really really think values are really important. It gives me a weighing mechanism to judge the round and makes things easier. I expect you to tie back your arguments to your value structures. I generally prefer if you agree on a value premise but if you oppose your opponent's value structure, be clear. Don't use complicated theories of ethics and expect me to nod my head. Keep it clear, simple and explain your stuff.

WELL ORGANIZED ARGUMENTS- I don't want you to be going everywhere making a round hell for me. Be organized, be clear. Signpost. Refer to your card names, tell me where your argument is (ie Contention 1, Sub Point C). I also like Off Time Road Maps.These skills not only help me in round but also will help you as a debater. Also, do NOT drop arguments. I may be a parent but I judge off of arguments.

REBUTTALS- I honestly think rebuttals are very, rather the most important. If you come up with one on spot, that you warrant really well, without any evidence, I will really like that. That being said, if you use evidence or a card, then I still won't mind. Just warrant it out and explain it to me. Just reading evidence is useless.

What I don't like

- You either being super tech or super lay. Talk like I'm a lay judge, argue like a tech one. But not too tech, it will only go against you.

-Being mean. You know the reasons. I will deliberately judge screw you if you are mean or sarcastic. We all know how oof being judge screwed is.

-Super advanced stuff. Maybe you even explain it, I will still not understand it. But at the end of the day, I hardly know what a K or theory or plan is. (This is my son assuring me that I don't know this stuff).

-Giving impacts without reasons. I don't want to hear "Climate Change is bad." Tell me how it is bad and connect your value premise's to it.

In the end, I appreciate you, your time and your skills as a debater. I may sound super picky in this paradigm but my son says it helps debaters. All this is for you to learn.

Good luck debating!

Nilufer Shaikh Princeton

Christian Sheerer Hawken

Last changed on Fri October 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM EDT

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

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

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

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

Things I don't like:

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

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

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

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

Chris Sheppard Hackley School

Ali Slimi Milton Academy

Cole Stacey Vestavia Hills High School None

Matthew Starkston Taipei American School

Evan Streams The Dalton School

Riya Thomas Cary Academy

Jackie Torres-Smith American Dream Charter School 8 rounds

Ethan Waggoner Horace Mann High School

Guoqiang Wang Wayland High School

Hengzhi Wang Boston Latin School

Jordan Wasserberger Horace Mann High School

Yiyi Wong The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds

Christine Xie Thomas Jefferson HSST 8 rounds

Jian Yang Newton South High School

Stanley Yang Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM EDT

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

David Yastremski Ridge High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Claire Yocom Millburn High School

Bahram Zia Maret School

Peter Zopes Chelmsford High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:29 AM EDT

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.

Login to Tabroom

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Public Forum Debate JV Paradigm List

Judges