Nick Abbott Paradigm

From Livermore CA with a son who is a Quarry Lane alumni. Have judged over 200 speech and debate rounds in the last four years, mainly Pufo, but pretty much all events except Policy. The main focus of my judging intent is to provide feedback within scope of tournament rules that will provide each student areas of improvement that will benefit them in their post high school public speaking activities. As a result, I take ballot input or RFD to each student very seriously.

Students: this is the best time in your lives to develop world-class speaking and agile/extemporaneous thinking. Go for the trophies, but the real win is the skill set.

Public Forum, LD, and overall guidance:

Speed: there's a trade off between quantity and elucidation. Negative returns if you 'spread'. Enunciate. If a listener can't understand your points, then how can you win an argument?

Offline roadmaps please.

Evidence and card wars: absolutely required to have crystal clear evidence with each of your contentions and subpoints. On the other extreme, card wars that fall into 'quantity' vs relevance, and become card dumping, will hurt the team with that approach. This is pofu, not Pokemon.

Framework and contentions: are they clear, consistent, and comprehensively covered (and attacked by the opposing team)?

Etiquette: lack of it, particularly if I conclude that one team takes the debate to a shouting match, has caused teams with a stronger case to lose the round and/or speak points hit.

I'm open to all logical arguments. I flow but am really a flay judge. E.G. I'm not a policy absolutist about all points being repeated in final focus, for example.

A final note, the students in speech and debate, from my perspective, are inspiring. It's a privilege To help these tournaments happen for the students.

Very stock parent judge. Believe that speaking is as important as debating, thus strong speaking skills will be rewarded with good speaker points. I try my best to take notes but I’m no expert at flowing. My son does debate and I try to listen in on the arguments he talks about. Truth > Tech.

Cross Ex is a really easy way to win my ballot. If you can poke holes in your opponents arguments whilst clearly and strategically explaining your own arguments I will appreciate it and it makes my job easier. I pay attention to all of the cross exes.

Please don’t spread or even speak too fast. It is important that you know how to speak in a organized but also realistic manner. Spreading means I can’t understand and thus I can’t take note of your arguments.

Impact calculus probably makes judging easier. Even if you’re losing an argument but you can prove why the ones you are winning are more important I will vote for you. These usually sound like “Even if you buy their arguments on economic policy, our climate change argument is more important because.......”

Background: I'm a junior at UC Berkeley; did PF and lay LD in high school (qualled to TOC in PF); coached/judged for the first two years of college; haven't done anything debate-related in a year

Arguments: I DON'T EVALUATE THEORY and am not comfortable with kritiks but will try my best to evaluate them; more experience with util debate i.e. plans/counterplans/disads.

Framework: As long as the framework is well explained, I should be fine evaluating it. If you're going to go for framework, make sure you explain clearly why I should prefer your framework over your opponents.

Speed: I can handle a decent amount and if you flash me the case anything is fine. I’ve never been uncomfortable flowing a round before. If you’re going too fast or being unclear, I’ll tell you.

Things to Do: 1) Off-time road maps are great, but don't make them excessively long. Just give me the order of flows. 2) Crystallization. 2NRs and 2ARs should collapse.

I debated for Harker for 4 years (Harker BC).

Any argument that you want me to vote for you on has to be in summary and final focus. Essentially, I don't want you to only bring up an argument in case, not extend it in summary and then bring it up again in FF. I am okay with defence being extended from rebuttal to final focus, but all voters need to be in both summary and FF.

Other than that I'm a flow judge so ill evaluate the round based on the flow.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

I vote off the flow, but I prefer teams who have a clear narrative in the round and who weigh effectively. If you have any specific questions, please ask.

Jesus Caro
Lincoln Douglas Coach - Oxford Academy; previous policy debate coaching experience
Experience: 4 years college LD/Parli

Backround: I debated for two years at Cerritos College and later transferred to CSU-Long Beach to compete in parliamentary debate. My academic background is in Finance and Accounting. I am familiar with most contemporary arguments in debate and have read books and news article before. I think that there is no such thing as tabula rasa but I also try not to insert myself, too much, in the debate round.
How Do I View Debate?
Fundamentally, I see debate as a rhetorical game that rewards the deployment of strategic skillsets within the round. This means that you should do whatever it is you are good at. I tend to believe that the affirmative will present a question and attempt to resolve that question using whatever tools they have. The negative will stand up and try to do the same, using different strategies and techniques. Whatever it is you do, you should be trying to write my ballot for me.

How Do I Decide Debate Rounds?
From my experience judging debate rounds I’ve come to the conclusion that most rounds either conclude in one of two scenarios. Either teams will compare their arguments versus their opponents or they won’t.
“Even If” Statements: I think the most important rebutalist tool is the “Even If” statements. Even If statements allows for the narrowing of the debate because it allows for certain parts of the debate to be conceded and ignored. They focus the debate to only the arguments that are important.
Risk Assesments: In assessing risk I think a team should win their link before they begin their risk assesment. Uniqueness usually controls the direction on the link, however, if this is all you are going for you in the rebuttals, then your probably behind everywhere else and your link argument was “ they pass plan”. For example, a politics disad requires a nuanced explanation of how the specific policy triggers the link. Otherwise the risk of a link is not intrinsic to the affirmative and tenous at best. In this situation I find that good link and impact defense are enough to mitigate any substantive effect of the disad, if argued in round.
When there is no Comparison: Intuitively I think I evaluate timeframe first, the sequence of the impacts, then the probability of your impacts happening, and finally I look to magnitude to quantify the gravity of the impact. This usually means that one of the teams will dislike the decision because I barely understand what timeframe, probablitiy or magnitude mean.
When there is Comparison: In rounds where one team is making all the comparisons using “even-if” statements, that team will usually win the round. However, in exceptional rounds where both teams are making comparative statements I will examine what questions have been established as relevant Then I will try to determine which team most accurately answers those questions.
Things That Can Be True.
Regarding speed of delivery I usually believe that I can catch most of what is being said in the debate round. However, as there is no “pen time” be aware that pausing between the #5 on the Uniquness and the #1 on the Link, helps keep my flow organized.
There are some arguments that will take some extra work to get me to vote on, usually RVI’s and Speed Bad.
Framework should never be considered a voting issue. Most of the time these arguments are simply impact calc. Essentially, any argument that describes a process of prioritization between two competing impacts/scenarios is a framework argument.
“Dropped” arguments, if answered elsewhere, are not dropped.
I think that you should have a resolutional basis for your affirmative. If you are the affirmative and have some rational basis for your interpretation of the debate (Policy/Kritik/Value/Fact/Whatever), all you have to do is answer the procedural effectively.
I appreciate strategic issue selection; you do NOT need to go for every argument in the round. Both teams should be collapsing to the FEW arguments that WILL win the round.
The best advice I ever received from a coach was this, “if you lose to a bad argument/team, it is because you did not do a good enough job explaining to the judge why the argument was nonsense or unimportant”.
Specific Arguments
Theory/Topicality/Procedurals: Since all of these questions are questions regarding rules, within the debate round, I will adhere to the following when evaluating them:
Unless otherwise indicated I default to seeing these as issues questions of competing interpretations, this means in-round abuse is not necessary. I also think that reasonability can be defined as having a counterinterpretation that solves the impact of the original interpretation, fairness or education.
Counterplans: Generally, I think that counterplans are one the most strategic tools the negative has to leverage any access to affirmative impacts. This is especially important when government actions seems almost necessary like “ The USFG Should send money to six children in a rural community”, what’s the disad to that aff? I think you should begin defending your CP in the LOC to fend off new theory arguments in the PMR. I usually let teams resolve questions of counterplan theory in-round. I do, however, have a predispotion towards fairness and tend to evaluate these questions through that lens.
Critiques: I am farily familiar with the kritik and understand the fundamental basis of its operation. However, this does not mean that I know the authors that you may be referencing or the terms you may be using.
Framework: I find most kritik frameworks to be spectres of illusions by assuming that there is a substantial difference between the impacts of the affirmative and the impacts of the affirmative. The function of the framework should be to clarify the role of the judge within the round and the role of the participants. Any framework that does not discuss these two concerns leaves me wanting for NB.
Alternative/Solvency: I find the most vulnerable part of a criticism is the function of the alternative, which, stems from the function of the framework. Largely teams will read framework claiming rhetoric comes first, with an alternative that to reject. The logical response is for the affirmative to say reject and affirm the plan, the permuation. In these situations the affirmative will almost always come ahead. However, a framework that delineates the requirements for a win always ensures that the alternative is the only viable option, giving the neg a better answer to the perm. Solvency, I find, in most criticisms are rather shallow because kritik teams are not quite sure how this part works. Much like a counterplan or PMC, the purpose of the alternative is to show that the alternative works. You should have warrants and examples to prove that a vote for the alternative can solve. It is not necessary to show that you create in-round change, insofar as it’s not the purpose of the framework.
Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Permutations should not be advocacies. This can be dissuaded by the debaters in round.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=evan+&search_last=steinberg

I give lower speaks when I'm hungry.

I am a judge who does not do well with fast speaking. I like it if points are explained very thoroughly and logically. I do not have much experience in debating, so debate terminology may need to also be explained. I do not like it if points are backed up by false facts or no facts, so make sure to have evidence!

Additionally, I do not understand theory or Ks very well and would prefer on-case, traditional debates.

E

Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student

Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.

Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.

Flex prep: I don't like it.

Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.

Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.

Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.

Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.

Last updated: 2/7/20 for Berkeley 2020

Affiliation: Harker (2016 - present)

I debated for four years for Foothill (Pleasanton, Calif.) and competed pretty heavily on the national circuit, but never left California except for NDF (two summers) and the ToC (4-3, 2015). To that end, if you’re looking for a short paradigm read, you can assume I’m pretty similar to other first-year outs who make decisions largely based on the flow. Go as fast as you want (I'm good with anything below spreading level!), but look out for cues if I can’t understand what you’re saying (tl;dr: please enunciate clearly). I’ll also disclose and give oral feedback after the round as long as all debaters are okay with that. Additionally, please do not flip for sides/position until I'm in the room.

First and foremost, be kind to one another: to your opponents in CX, to your partner during prep time (don't yell at them! We're all out here trying our best), to any spectators, to the equipment in the room we're using, and to me. If I don't think you're being respectful, it will be reflected both in your speaks and my post-round comments to you.

My most important caveat is I will not evaluate an argument if you don't warrant it. For example, you cannot tell me “Vote Pro because we save ten thousand lives” if you do not actually spend enough time explaining to me *why* that’s the case. This means a handful of things:

1. Every argument / voter in the round should follow claim-warrant-impact. Given that I value warranting the most, I will not give you access to your impact unless you give me a warrant.
2. If the debate is a wash on the impact level, I will vote for the team that has superior warranting. This can be accomplished either through quantity (two warrants vs one), or quality (a particular warrant seems much more intuitive, and is backed by empirics). It all depends on how you weigh for me!
3. While I’d like to say I’m tab / a believer in tech over truth, I am much more likely to vote for intuitive arguments. That said, I ran some pretty sketchy stuff as a debater myself though, so if you have good, carded warrants for WW3 or human extinction, hit me with your best shot — but be cognizant that I will evaluate these arguments with a degree of skepticism.
4. If you run theory, I’ll make my best attempt to listen, but there’s a 99% chance I’m going to have significant difficulty understanding your advocacy. That means you should probably only run theory in the case of serious and obvious abuse.
5. It is impossible to warrant a bigoted argument. That means any racism, homophobia, sexism, elitism, etc. will not be tolerated if I'm sitting in the back of the room -- that stuff has no place in a community as wonderful as ours.
6. It is difficult to give five well-warranted responses to an argument your opponent runs. Quality > quantity.
7. I am much more likely to give you higher speaks if you and your partner do a superior job warranting.

Other random stuff:

No need for an off time roadmap before starting your rebuttal. Please just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on (i.e. whose side of the flow you want me to put the framework debate on).

I’m a big fan of creative frameworks that go beyond “lives are #1” or “net benefits,” such as trend arguments or weighing ST v. LT (or anything that helps to mitigates your opponents’ offense from the get-go).

I hate voting off of buzz words like “economic benefits” and “increased security” — give me good, quantified impacts and empirics to weigh. If you do not weigh for me, then I cannot guarantee I will weigh the way you want me to.

I strongly prefer that the second rebuttal address the 1st rebuttal -- especially if your opponents are reading turns -- but at the end of the day, make the strategic choice you think is best for you and your partner.

I flow old school, with a piece of paper paper and two Pilot G2 pens. I like to think I'm decent at getting everything you say down on the flow, but if something is super important, you might want to slightly slow down (for both the aforementioned reason and rhetorical effect).

I will call for cards if either you/your opponents explicitly tell me to do so in a speech, or if anything sounds exceptionally sketchy. If I think you're misrepresenting your evidence, I reserve the right to drop that card when making my decision.

If you're taking free prep time while your opponents are looking for evidence that you asked for, I will ask you to stop. Similarly, you shouldn't take too long finding evidence for your opponents.

The best summaries / final foci require minimal work on the flow. That means you should feel pretty good about your speech if you just see me drawing extensions for the whole two minutes.

TL;DR — I vote for the team with the better, cleaner narrative. The best way to do that is by weighing and giving me strong warrants.

Lastly, I believe that any spectator should be allowed in the room. Debate is an educational event at heart, and I learned so much by watching varsity teams back in the day. In prelims, I'm happy to ask that spectators not flow / take notes while watching (you can learn a lot by just listening), but in Elims, it's all a part of the game. I will be very disappointed in you if you choose to turn any spectator away, including parents! If you also have an issue with a spectator being distracting in the room during one of your speeches, you should tell me ASAP.

Of course, the most important thing is to have fun. High school debate doesn’t last forever, so enjoy it while you can! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Background: Coached high school debate for four years, middle school debate for two years and I'm currently in my first year of college coaching.High School Competitive Experience:  Mainly in congress, impromptu, parli and duo.  Qualified to states in cong, duo, opp and TOC bid in congress.  College Competitive Experience: Parli, IPDA, Extemp, Impromptu, ADS/STE.  NPTE Qualifier, Parli 2nd seed and Semifinalist at state , 8th best Parli spkr and semifinalist at Nationals, awarded best college parli team in the country as voted on by competitors. State champ in imp/ext, finalist ads. National Finalist imp, semifinalist ads and ext.

Delvery: A. Speed       I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than avg flow judge. If I call speed 3x and you don't slow down you lose the round.       B. Speaker Points. Rounds should be fun. If you make me laugh, I'll give you 30 spks no questions asked. I like puns, messed up jokes, Childish Gambino, Hamiltion and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to. Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

Counterplans: Make sure they aren't permable, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as their isn't offense on them. I'll listen to condo theory

Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link,, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on one k ever.

Topicality: If you're being  abused by the aff run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse. 

Reverse Voting Issues: They usually arent very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed, clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to  be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

Overall: Be organized, use subpoints, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly.  Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

I debated PF for four years and am now coaching for Leland

I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework. I also appreciate a good strategy, so debaters who do a good job telling a coherent ballot story will make me happy. Finally, and arguably most importantly, I refuse to clear up clash for any team. This is the responsibility of the debaters.

I only like theory when there is a legitimate abuse committed in/out of the round, if you run frivolous theory as a timesuck then I'm probably not even going to bother evaluating it.

I do not believe that posting paradigms is good for debate. That said:

1) I have extensive experience in judging all debate events.

2) As this is not policy and you are limited in time, use speed wisely. If it is effective I will flow with you. Be sure, however, that you make a judicious decision. 

3) Evidence is important, but argumentation is more important. Evidence wars tend to be a waste of good clash and argument time.

I allow each team to ask one additional, specific paradigm question before the round for all to hear.

Administrative:

I do not time road maps. I do not time prep since I cannot determine conclusively what you are doing on your computers at any given time; you can police each other.

As a rule I use speech time to flow rather than to write comments. Anything important will be in the RFD.

Debated VPF for 4 years (but haven't been involved in debate since 2015). Will vote off the flow but don't spread or get too fancy- If I can't follow/understand odds are you will lose. I'm only writing this because I was told to, if you want more detailed paradigm ask before round.

I debated all four years of high school, graduating from Harker in 2016. In general, I’m a flow judge, but my no means should you spread. *EDIT* flowing skills are down the drain so I'd prefer a slightly slower than average speaking style!

I have a decent amount of preconceived notions about the way public forum debate should operate, so I’ll just list a few.

First about speeches and what they should address, I believe that the second 2nd speaker doesn’t necessarily have to address what the first 2nd speaker said, but they have the option to do so. For the most part, summaries should address your own case, combatting the rebuttals your opponents put on your case. You don’t need to necessarily respond to every response, but rather just respond to every response on the contentions you are pushing through summary and final focus. I hate when teams blindly extend through ink, so make sure to address relevant responses. In addition, don’t silent extend args into FF, if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round it has to be in summary and FF. Case turns have to be talked about in summary to be extended into FF. At the same time, I still evaluate unextended defensive responses at the end of the round, but if there is an important response, for clarity’s sake please try to extend it or I may forget it.

Secondly, I don’t believe in tabula rasa in debate rounds. If a response or argument doesn’t make sense to me, I’m just not going to evaluate it. It’s on you to explain your responses and arguments well and make sure they are relevant.

Thirdly, while I’m a big proponent of rebuttal overviews, tell me where to flow it. It’s also important to distinguish offense from defense. Defensive arguments are not a reason to vote for you, but rather lessen the reason to vote for the other team. Try to focus on offensive args in the FF.

Fourthly, for crossfires, I would say keep them clean, but that usually never happens. Instead, try to entertain me instead of pissing me off. Witty crossfires are an easy way too earn an instant 30 speaks (but not required by any means!). Moreover, important concessions in crossfire should be explained in speeches, I’m not flowing crossfire. Also, please please please don't talk to your partner during crossfire, that's a surefire way to lose speaks!

Fifthly, in terms of speaker points, just being entertaining and in general “a good debater” is the easiest way to earn high speaks. Be confident, know what you’re talking about, explain things well, and you’re good to go. Crossfire honestly influences my perception of speaks a lot, so if you get destroyed in a crossfire – don’t expect high speaker points. In addition, while I don’t want you to kiss up, being just generally nice and kind is a good way to inflate your speaks. Also I’m not going to penalize you for cutting your speeches short, but you should typically talk for the whole time unless you are winning so hard there’s nothing more to say, which rarely happens.

Sixthly, I heavily value warrant analysis. People throw around empirics a bunch in public forum, not explaining the warrants behind them. Winning the warrant debate is more important than winning the impact debate. At the same time, you still need to pair impacts to your warrants, just pushing the warrant isn’t enough.

Lastly but most importantly, impact framing is key. If you don’t tell me which arguments are more important I’m just going to arbitrarily choose. Framing which impacts and which arguments are more crucial is the most helpful thing in deciding my ballot.

p.s. if you're here from Emaad's paradigm, god help you. He'll give you 30 speaks if you give a minute of prep time to your opponent. Good luck, have fun with the judge screw :)

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

i debated

weighing is useful

I'm just a college student volunteering to judge for my high school. I have done debate in the past, but do not expect me to be super knowledgeable on the current topic. Most likely will not give rfd's after round. 

Please be polite throughout the round and especially during cross examination. Speaking quickly is fine, just don't overdo it. 

Good luck!

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Experience

I am a LAY judge with now 4.5 years of experiencing judging public forum on both the local and circuit level.

Judging

I take extensive notes score the round and to try to give constructive feedback. I value all parts of the debate (including analysis, evidence, reasoning, cross, and rebuttal). I, like many other judges, try my best to come into the round with a tabula rasa mindset. I value clarity and substance, quality, and warranting for any arguments over quantity. When speaking, clarity precludes speed. Only go as fast as you can while speaking comprehensively. If I do not catch something because it is unclear, I will not take the argument into account in my RFD.

Speaking

Like I said earlier, clarity and good warranting/reasoning over quantity and speed. How I allocate speaker points is related to clarity, confidence in the manner you speak persuasively (after all, this is PUBLIC FORUM).

Enjoy yourselves and have a good round.

1) Parent judge

2) No spreading

3) Not a flow judge

4) Don't run any theories or k's, don't try to be fancy, I will not understand it

5) tech > truth

6) You can clash/cut each other off during cross but just don't be rude

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

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.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I'm flow. Don't speak fast. I did pf before for 4 years.

I am a parent judge, but I will pay close attention to the round and take notes. Don't speak too fast, don't be rude during cross examination, explain your arguments as clearly as possible for me to understand them better. I have been judging for several years now so I understand the structure of debate well. You can time yourself.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

Background:

Hi! I'm a student at UC Berkeley. I primarily competed in Extemp and Congress for Leland High School, as well as a bit of Parli and Policy. 

Summary: I prefer quality over quantity (both regarding evidence and analysis).

Make my job as a judge as easy as possible; give a clear framework, have well-supported arguments, and most importantly, tell a cohesive story.

If you mention a voter issue in the final focus, make sure you bring it up in the summary. I also won't flow crossfire, so reference it in your speeches.

Although good speaking and rhetoric are definitely important, I vote off the flow (you can get high speaks and not my ballot, and vice versa).

Be nice to me, your partner, opponents, and audience, and don't forget to have fun/be yourselves. 

Specifics:

-Framework: Explicitly describe how I should be weighing the debate. I'm a tabula rasa judge so need a mechanism to weigh arguments (unless your framework is skewed). That being said, don't sacrifice debating the resolution for framework debates. 

-Argumentation: I prefer standard claim-warrant-impact structure. If you're running "progressive" arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.), that's fine, as long as you explain everything as if I were a lay judge. Make sure you extend arguments you've won (just saying "extend" won't cut it for me) and weigh your impacts against your opponents'. If you say something in the final focus, it must have been mentioned in the summary. Make sure you you give me a clear story of why I should vote for you in the final focus; in fact, try to make it sound like what you want my RFD to be. In my book, turns to opponents' arguments and extending a couple key arguments is much better than line-by-line.

-Speed/jargon: Debate is about articulating your arguments clearly and succinctly. If you need to speak at ~300 words per minute to get your point across, you're doing something wrong. You could speak a bit faster/use some more jargon than you would in front of a parent, though don't overdo it.

-Evidence: You should support your arguments well with relevant evidence. That being said, don't make debates a contest of who has the most/best evidence, it's the impacts that matter. Two good cards with good analysis beat ten irrelevant cards every time. I'll only call for evidence if you dispute what it says/ask me to read it. 

-Crossfire: Don't treat it as a time to reiterate what you said in your speeches. Develop your analysis more and try to extract concessions from your opponents. Also, please don't talk out of turn.

-Speaker points: Good vocal inflection and gestures are important. Jokes and creative analogies are more than welcome (I'm a history buff), +1 if you refer to satirical sites like The Onion and Borowitz Report, but if it's not up your alley, don't do it to impress me. Just be yourself; if none of what I said resonates, just make me want to have coffee with you or something. 

Here's my rubric:

30: One of the best debate speeches I've ever seen

29: Good chance of reaching late elims

28: You should probably clear

27: Decent, but could clearly improve

26: Areas of major improvement needed

25 and below: You said something racist, sexist, ableist, etc, were rude to your partner/opponents, intentionally spread out novices, or did anything that was abusive in-round. Not only is this a great way to tank your speaks, it's also a great way to lose my ballot.

Because I don't want to end this on how not to pick up, I guess some of my interests are environmental policy, biotech, public health, and the intersection of technology and socioeconomic issues, so I'd love to listen to arguments about those issues. The current Cuban Embargo topic appeared quite a few times; spoke on it a lot in Congress, but I really want to hear about how current political dynamics are changing the situation. Feel free to hit me up on Facebook or shoot me an email at sathviknair@berkeley.edu if you want more feedback or just want to talk :)

Good luck and I'm hoping to see some great rounds!

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Went to Fairmont Prep, did circuit PF for 4 years

*****DO NOT ASK FOR TIME BEFORE ROUND TO PRE-FLOW!*****

Public Forum Paradigm

1. Tech over Truth

I will buy any argument. If you have the cards for it I will evaluate it, and even if I do not believe it I will vote on it if you win it. 

2. Intervention

My goal is to never intervene in the round. This includes on evidence. If your opponent's evidence is false or misconstrued, and you do not tell me I will count the evidence in the round- even if I call for the evidence and can clearly see it is misconstrued.

3. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you must extend it in the summary. 

4. Framing

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to util. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments, not a fan of them, but you can read them. You will, however, have to have substantial warranting on why I should use your non-util framing.

5. Narrow the final focus

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues.  If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments.  That is not good for you because I like crazy stuff.

6. Theory

I will vote on theory arguments if they are done well meaning you must have an actual impact of the abuse. Simply is saying this harms education/fairness is not sufficient, you must explain how it harms education/fairness and why education/fairness matters. I default to competing-interpretations (I am willing to use reasonability if you explain why), and I default to condo good (unless you prove otherwise). You also need to explain why theory comes first.

7. Arguments in Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech.  Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. However, you can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech. 

8. Evidence availability

If you read any evidence, have the card available to hand over. Constructives should have their cards ready to hand over, in order, (probably even in the same document) because you know someone is going to ask for them. And having a bunch of PDF’s that you have to Command-F is not having your cards available. That is just lazy debating, and I will doc speaks if you just have PDFs and do not card your evidence. I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE that teams provide evidence when requested on one laptop on one document, in any other format you are wasting their prep. If you provide all the cards from your speech to your opponent right after or before your speech without being asked I will boost your speaks by 1.5 points.

9. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities. If you get up and make an argument along the lines of "my opponent doesn't have date of access in their cards, you should drop them." I will drop something, not the team, more likely your speaks. 

10. Indicts are not argument

I hate indict debates that overpower actually debating real argument. Indicting a card is just making the argument less believable, not actually beating it. Their indicted evidence outweighs your non-existence evidence or logic. 

11. Observers

If someone wants to watch they can watch, and they can flow. You are probably thinking "Nick, that is so unfair they are going to give away my flow to other teams." News flash. The team you are debating has your flow, and they are going to give it away. Furthermore, if your case is so weak that someone having your flow will decimate your chances of winning, you probably were going to lose anyways. Just remember this is Public Forum- you can not deny the public from the forum.

If you have any further question feel free to ask. 

I am a parent judge, but I have been judging the National Circuit PF for five years and judged 600+ rounds (including TOC semifinals). I am scientist so if you are making science arguments please make sure you understand the science..

How to win my ballot

• Speak clearly
• Extend arguments- not cards
• Focus the debate to what you are winning
• Keep theory reserved for actual abuse
• Keep Ks in policy
• Keep aliens and zombies for bad movies and out of debate
• Summary in line with final focus
• Be polite
• Have your evidence ready (you have 1 minute)

How to get good speaks

• Make good arguments
• Make good choices
• Don't yell
• Don't argue with me

Pet Peeves

• Arguing with me after the round- I GIVE SPEAKS AFTER I GIVE MY RFD FOR THIS REASON

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Update: Please only use e-mail chains. No flashing! 

I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley and debated at Presentation High School for 4 years. Two of those years were on the circuit

Theory/Topicality:

-      RVIs are fine 

K’s

-     I don't understand them and have realized I can't judge them either. Don't run them in front of me. 

Disads/CP

-       Go for it! I’ll understand it!

Framework:

-      I don't understand complex framework - was a util debater and that's what I'm most comfortable evaluating. 

* Don’t speak too fast. If I can’t understand you effectively, I can’t judge you effectively.

* Be Respectful of each other.

* No new information to be introduced in the Final Focus.

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

All Debate

Tech > truth

Please learn2framework (presumption is filter not layer unless specified)

as tab as I can possibly be

cool with: speed, k, t (boring), theory, performance, bribes

not cool with: you wasting my time to pre flow, in round abuse, equity violations, the USA

I don’t care what’s real outside the round, I’ll only vote on things said in round. Something is true until you tell me it isn’t true. Don’t be boring and also don’t be bad thank you

Public Forum

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Do all of your weighing for me. I will not weigh anything on my own.

If its not in summary I wont evaluate it in final focus.

2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline/case defense, definitely still can though

Presumption is neg in any instance that demands intervention, risk of solvency arguments fair game for the aff.

signposting saves lives

Picky about extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Revolutionary Vanguard

Only god, in her infinite wisdom, can forgive me now.

In memory of those radicalized:

B. SHAHAR

G. TARPERING

J. NAHAS

tech > truth

tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

***Updated Berkeley Day 2*****

Y'all have really pushed me to my limits ): and now I'm not even feeling entirely tab as a paradigm because no weighing is being done for me. I WILL GO NEG ON PRESUMPTION IF PRO DOESN'T DO ANY WORK. IM TIRED OF HAVING TO DO YOUR WEIGHING FOR YOU.

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

Like many judges I try my best to be tabula rasa, like all of them, however, I fail. I'm comfortable with just about any argument at any speed. I like good K debates and long walks on the beach. Tech comes before truth for me until I'm told otherwise.

Thats like 2 or 3 years old^

In reality nowadays I'll probably beg you to spread or read something kritikal or perform or do anything (fun).

^Thats old too now

Tech > truth

Tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

THANKS TO ALLEN ABBOTT I WONT EVEN CALL FOR CARDS TO AVOID ANY INTERVENTION

I ONLY INTERVENE IN ONE WAY: IF I DONT SEE IT IN MY FLOW FOR THE SUMMARY I WONT VOTE ON THE EXTENSION IN FINAL FOCUS REGARDLESS OF WHO TELLS ME TO DO IT OR WHY I SHOULD DO IT

UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME WILD THEORY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY I SHOULD ALLOW IT OR NOT INTERVENE ON IT IN WHICH CASE PLEASE HMU WITH THAT ID LOVE TO HEAR IT.

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

I am a Public Forum coach. I like to see teams who are polite and respectful to their opponents, especially during crossfires. Definitely include weighing and impact calculus in your final focus, don’t leave it up to me.

zsandoval@loyolahs.edu

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.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

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

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

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. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

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 (where applicable) 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 means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

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, 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 (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. 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..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

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 (where applicable) 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 Topicality 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

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. 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.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- 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. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

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/

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

I competed in LD for James Logan from 2010-2014 then coached from 2014-2016. I've been gone from the activity for five years so I'm sure a lot has changed, but I'll try my best to keep up. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them.

A general overview:

I can probably handle some degree of speed but it's been close to six years since I've judged a circuit tournament so take that as you will. Also take into account that since everything is virtual, it will be much harder for me to hear you.

Regardless of how fast you choose to speak, signpost clearly.

If you want something to matter at the end of the round, clearly extend it all the way to your last speech. Even if your opponent dropped it, extend the full argument.

Framework doesn't necessarily need to be a traditional V/VC, but needs to exist in some form for me to evaluate the rest of the round.

I like when debaters tell me exactly how and why I should be voting. Crystallize the debate clearly at the end of the round and tell me exactly why you won.

Weigh your arguments. I hate sitting at the end of the round with a bunch of floating impacts. It will be so much easier for me to vote for you if I don't have to do any of that work for you.

I've never been a huge fan of theory. If you do choose to run it, you better have a very good reason.

Hi,

Competed in lay policy/pf. Qualified to TOC in pf senior year. If you use jargon, please explain it. Please do not spread.

Recommended practice for calling for evidence: Ask to see evidence before your next speech/after crossfire or partner can hand over evidence during crossfire.

If it takes longer than a minute, I will assess prep time to the team calling for the evidence.

Likes: Narrative in final focus, clear speaking style, back and forth during crossfires, weighing/crystallization of important arguments in summary/final focus

Dislikes: Blippy one line responses, evidence presented without analysis, misconstruing evidence, shaking hands with debaters (only because I don't want to get sick)

Hello,

My name is Henli Tjokrodjojo,

I work in finance, so if you talk about the economy, that is something up my alley.My affiliation is with Dougherty Valley High school, and I have been judging for 6 years in Public Forum, Extemp/Impromptu/Interp, LD. I do not like fast speaking, but a bit of speed is okay as long as I can understand it.

I award speaker awards based on how confident you are as well as your argumentation. I generally give a range of 26 to 29 with an average of 27.5 or something. Just please don't be rude to me or your opponents. Make sure to explain your arguments.

I make a decision based on a couple of things.

A small part is how you present your arguments. Obviously if you cannot articulate your arguments well, you won't be getting my vote. The biggest thing is your explanation. I think interacting with your opponents arguments and explaining how they are wrong and how you are right makes me vote for you. I do take notes, while I don't flow, I try to take detailed notes on what you are talking about. Truth over tech.

MISC weighing stuff.

1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1 Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 9 Cross Examination: 7 Debate skill over truthful arguments: 2

I also prefer no spectators because I feel like it is unfair for a debater to have spectators for them while the other does not. This can be distracting. However, if both debaters are okay with spectators, i may be okay with it.

Please ask me any questions before the round, but if it's towards the end of the day I may be a bit more quiet :) you know, cause I will be tired.

I am excited to hear what you're excited about. I think this is a place to test ideas and hence, I think you should run the arguments you feel most passionatley about. 

If you don't have time to read anymore of this, just know that honestly you should just do you.

My preference is for the debaters to tell me how to decide the debate. 

What is my role and why is this a good framing for debate? 

Simply offering a role of the ballot argument is often too little on its own.

Additionally, what constitutes an impact is also probably another good discussion to have.

I try my best to be fair and vote for who mostly clearly explains why they win, this gets more difficult if the debaters don't establish how to do that.

Otherwise, I generally vote for teams that win impact framing, potential offensive turns, and risk/direction of the link-type arguments. 

Organization -this is really only important to me if it is important to you. Yes, the organization of your speech makes a huge impact on what I perceive it is that you are going for/think you are winning, but I am comfortable with top down style if that is your stylistic preference.  Know, when you make this choice to reorganize debates I can be more inclined to vote on my gut and what I perceive as the thesis of the 2NR vs the 2AR

Speed really doesn't matter to me, but slow debate can be really effective sometimes. In the rebuttals clarity is key, and if you really want me to get something, you should slow down and say it.

As a note-I love watching debaters who have fun in round. I am known to laugh a little or make some expressions when I hear things in rounds that surprise me, please don't be thrown off by this as, it is often a good thing. 

I love specific CPs and enjoy creative deployment of these arguments. I suppose I just like to see these used as a way to show how deeply you have prepared for this affirmative case. I am less excited about procedural CPs, but will vote for them if deployed well. 

The K

This is the literature I am honestly the most involved in. Please tell me how the K impact relates to the Aff impact to make this easier for you to win your K.

Also, permutation debates here are HUGE, the clearer your competition with the aff the better.   

K on the Aff ? Go for It! 

If Framework is your neg strategy agaisnt the K aff, I am open to this, but I am always looking for how this provides a substantive turn to the aff.

The DISAD- Yes, go for these arguments! 1) I am looking for smart impact comparisons to the affirmative. 2) I would like to see how the DA turns the case if you are going for the DA and the status quo as your neg strat. 

T/Theory arguments can be really strategic if done well.

I believe one in depth standard out weighs multiple shallow standards.

I am inclined to reject the arg not the team, but can be persuaded the other way. 

Serverance and intrinsicness are probably bad. 

Applications of how your whole argument/strategy apply to theory are appreciated. 

Case- I strongly recommended making arguments here. It might be all you need in the 2nr. Case turns, impact defense, and even mini critiques on case are all a good idea.

Other Things 

Speaker Points- I generally give between 27.5-28.5. Anything higher means you should you know you were exceptional and anything lower means you probably did okay, but didn't excel in that particular round.

Perception can be really important in debate. If I get the idea that you don't care about your arguments, then I probably won't either. 

I believe your extensions should have some depth in the final speeches. Mentioning an author and then moving on does not count as extending an argument. I will not call for the card. 

Glad to answer any questions you have. 

I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.

I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.

Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.

PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

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

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.