Barkley Forum for High Schools
2021 — classrooms.cloud, GA/US
Matthew Brandstetter Paradigm
I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik but will entertain the argument as well as counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy. I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. I am an advocate that debate is also an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me in the back of the room.
RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters coming to shake my hand before or after the round; the most you may receive is a fist bump, yet with all the germs circulating at tournaments, I prefer a simple thank you voiced by competitors after the round, if they feel so inclined.
Donald Broussard Paradigm
Policy Debate Paradigm:
The things you are probably looking for:
Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.
Performance: I do not want to see a performance (deal-breaker)—I took policy debate extremely seriously, and I only want to see your creativity showcased through your strategy and your arguments; however, a relevant and cutesy pun here and there will be well-appreciated.
Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.
Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.
****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********
Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.
· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.
· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.
· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.
Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.
Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:
My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.
My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.
Carlos Freyre Paradigm
Hello! I did Debate for 4 years at Western Highschool and I consider myself a classic flow judge. Here are my ground rules.
For LD specifically,
I believe that debate is a game and that it should be played however you want it to be. I'll accept any argument as long as it's not obviously sexist/racist/or homophobic. Just be comfortable!
1. If you make me laugh you get a 30.
2. First Sum does not need defense, the second Sum, however, does. There is one caveat to this rule and it is if the second rebuttal decides to frontline, then I think it would be advantageous to frontline back.
3. Don't be rude in cross and if you are please mop them. Additionally, I dislike snarkiness outside of crosses especially, you will be really docked on speaks if you do this.
4. Don't power-tag/read fake evidence, I will most likely call for it and if I have been judging enough on a topic and know your card is entirely fake, you'll suffer for it.
5. Don't spread or read theory/K's unless there is actual abuse/problem with the topic.
6. Every Speach past constructive needs to give me a clear off-time roadmap.
7. Generally, I am tech over truth, however, if you read something completely ridiculous you have to have either amazing frontlines or they'd have to completely screw up their responses.
8. I am good with flex prep as long as it's not done abusively and both teams agree.
9. You can't kick turns by accepting a non-unique in final focus and if you do it in any speech you've gotta apply their non-unique to the turns.
10. Keep each others prep in check.
Andrew Glickman Paradigm
Updated for On line debate in 2020.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Teams must be able to pull up evidence and put it on the chain promptly. A team asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep the team's prep time from starting. A team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.
Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This is my fourth year judging PF debate for my son's school. Prior to 2019-2020, most of my PF experience was at local tournaments in Montgomery County, Maryland where the competition is not broken down into varsity, JV or novice and, unfortunately, is not on par with what you see on the national circuit. Most recently, during the 2019-2020 debate season, I've judged varsity at a number of tournaments (NSDA Nationals, TOC, Yale, Apple Valley, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Harvard, Georgetown Fall PF). The remainder of my PF judging experience has been at the J.V. level at the Harvard, Lakeland, and Georgetown Spring 2019 tournaments.
Please read my full paradigm below.
Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.
Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if you are speaking fast please don't forget to pay attention to me.
Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.
Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. Paraphrasing is allowed but can lead to problems that can be avoided simply by not paraphrasing. Context is often very important. Consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)
Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.
Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.
By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.
Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.
On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.
Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."
I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.
Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.
Katelynn Shadman Paradigm
Plano West Evidence Policy Change: "When requested, the team of which the evidence is requested will have one minute to produce the requested evidence. If requests for multiple pieces are made, accommodations will be made for that, but the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame." *after the 1 minute, you can use prep or drop the ev
please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (I also messed around in WSD and LD)
University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~
virtual debate things:
i've judged a fair amount of online tournaments this season, here are a few things i've noticed:
- the faster you go the more you glitch (i really don't care if you go fast, it just kinds happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would probably be in y'alls best interest to send a speech doc
- for some reason it's taking debaters a long time to find and send evidence, if you read it in a speech, expect it to be called and have it ready (again, i recommend an email chain but it's up to you)(also look at the ev part of my paradigm at the very bottom :) )
- just know, i'm always ready. my camera is off a lot mainly because i am most likely judging in a dorm room with other people there
- please pre flow, i don't understand why online debate means 20 minutes to set up for every round after all the debaters get there (if there are tech issues that's different, but like, let's go)
+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. don't just set it up and never use it, or only send case and call for cards throughout the round (a proper email chain sends before every speech)
welcome to my paradigm:
Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.
- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it
- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact
- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)
- terminalize impacts
- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)
- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments
- SPEED: (i've changed what use to be here) my threshold for speed is very high, and i honestly don't care how fast you go WITH THAT SAID, if you read my online debate portion of my paradigm-- when you go fast online you glitch so i don't understand what you're saying (even if you don't spread). so if you want to go faster/spread whatever, just send a speech doc and give me a heads up -- this is only acceptable if your opponents know how to flow off a speech doc (ie. be careful at locals)
- quality > quantity
- tech > truth (I try as much as possible)
- default util
- 2nd Speaking: frontline offense in rebuttal pls
- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)
- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate
- I didn't run progressive args in high school but I have a general understanding of how they function, you can run them in front of me but it has to be clearly warranted (also, the other side should understand what you are reading, if you run this stuff against novices, small schools, etc. I will vote you down and give you 25s)
- if you want to skip grand i won't be mad #abolishgrandcross
evidence: (enjoy this cute little rant)
sparknotes version: don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue I AM VERY LIKELY TO VOTE ON IT (if it's legit)
I literally don't understand why evidence ethics are so bad. Just make an email chain and send all the evidence you're reading before every speech, it's not hard and cx/ld have been doing it forever, it doesn't put you behind. Also, if for some reason you choose to make the round harder and take more time by not doing an email chain please do not take long to pull up your evidence. I really don't want to set a time limit so just don't take 10 minutes to pull up evidence. The standard should be: if you read it in the speech, expect it to be called (so have the cut card with link and cites ready to go).
If you have any questions about what to do in terms of presenting evidence, I have linked the NSDA rules below. I will at least give you 25s for a violation. If your opponents are in violation, make it a voting issue, no cap. I will vote them down.
- if you do make it a voting issue, i will call for the evidence in question to make sure there is an actual violation (please don't think it's game over for you if someone calls you out for bad evidence but it's actually legit)
- I need cut cards with (at least) a link to the full article
- I know this is a lot but there are too many debaters trying to cheat the system with bad evidence and I just want to make it crystal clear how I am judging rounds and that I'm not making up things just as an excuse to vote debaters down (and yes unfortunately I need to make that distinction)
Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style: