PF PARADIGM (Updated 11/15/2020)

Experience
I have competed and coached public forum debate for over a decade.

I have debate experience in PF, Parli, and NFA LD.

Pet Peeves

1. PRE-FLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

2. Do not laugh at your opponents. Disrespect is not tolerated at all.

3. Paraphrased blips with no warrants. 5 pieces of evidence back to back in a case within 30 seconds of reading drives me nuts. I much prefer you all reading cards which have warrants instead of your paraphrasing. To me, warrants are very important. I do not default oppose paraphrasing but I have voted multiple times on paraphrasing theory when the argument is won.

4. Debaters not collapsing.

Second Half of the Debate

DO NOT expect me to do work for you. I only evaluate offensive arguments found in both the summary and final focus. Defense is not necessary to be extended in these speeches, but can help build a narrative.

Me Calling for Evidence

The exception to me "doing work" is if the debaters don't do the work for me. I.e. - if both teams tell me the other teams evidence is bad and I should call it without explaining why the evidence is bad, I will call both cards and make the determination on my own. If a debate is not resolved by the debaters I will resolve the debate using the evidence if there is no other way to resolve the round.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are not largely determined by how pretty you sound. Rather, I use them as a reward for your talent as a critical thinker. Things I evaluated include but are not limited to - organization, pointing out logical inconstancies or double turns, articulating implications of impacts, etc.

Evidence Ethics
PLEASE READ FULL CARDS - if you do not, I will hold you to a very high level of scrutiny and will likely call for more of your cards and evaluate them myself. I have seen too many teams lose debate rounds because debaters have misrepresented evidence that was never called for.

Speed

In PF, I am cool with speed and will be able to flow you if you read full cards. I have experience in debate with speaking speeds up to 500 wpm. However, if you are reading paraphrased cases with 10 pieces of evidence paraphrased in 30 seconds, I may not catch author name and year and I will likely tank that teams speaks. So, slow down for author names and tags. If you aren't reading full cards (then read full cards), but if you really choose may not want to go as fast.

ALSO - YOU CANNOT USE SPEED AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION. If both teams want to go fast, go for it- I will be more than capable of following. However, if your opponent is excluded from the round because of your speed, I will vote against you if you do not slow down. If you feel as if you are being excluded from the round please say "speed" audibly while your opponent is speaking. If your opponent has said speed 2-3 times and you haven't slowed down, I will be very persuaded to drop you for your abuse of speed.

"DA's" And "Overviews" in the Rebuttal

I really dislike what PFers are calling "DA's" or overviews which are functionally a new contention. These arguments, absent a link to your opponents case, will not be evaluated. If you are going to make this style of argument I would love to hear it if you have a clear link to an argument offered by your opponent in their prior speech. I don't want to hear a new contention in first and/or especially second rebuttal and then have you tell me your impact comes first on time frame or something shady like that.

Weighing

You must weigh to have a good chance of winning my ballot. That being said, if neither team weighs I will default to magnitude/big stick impacts. That being said, I can easily be persuaded otherwise. You just need to warrant why. Debaters always under-warrant the impact debate and take it for granted. For example, simply saying "my impact is more likely" is not enough of a warrant to persuade me. Carded weighing will likely give you the upper hand and probably a bump in speaks.

Weird Arguments

I am definitely ok listening to arguments that may not be intuitive (prolif good, warming good, etc.). However, I am not a fan of unreasonably stretching the scope of the resolution. For example, if the topic asks about increasing military spending, I don't think the Aff gets the right to pick one obscure program, such as nuclear submarines a professor in Europe thought about in the 90s if it hasn't been discussed as a legitimate policy suggestion. I am much more likely to vote on something ripped from the headlines. Thus, if the Aff reads evidence that says the military is short on funding but its main priority is increasing troop presence to fight ISIL, it is easy to make the logical assumption that if funding were increased that is what the government would do.

I think vague topics are bad in PF but we have our fair share of them. I don't think teams get to cherry pick facets of a topic and claim them as their "advocacy". For example, if the resolution is The USFG should prioritize welfare over transportation, I don't think the neg gets to say that we only defend revamping bike paths and bus routes and then ignore all other aspects of the topic. The Aff has every right to read an evidence based argument that increased spending would be used to improve airports which increases ozone deterioration even though you didn't talk about airport infrastructure in your con. In essence, in my eyes you don't get "advocacies". Rather, it is your job to be prepared to defend the whole of the resolution for whichever side you are on in PF.

Additional Questions

If there is anything you don't see on here, feel free to ask me before the round :)

HIGH SCHOOL LD PARADIGM

I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments. No exceptions.

I look for the easiest route to the ballot. Definitely not a big fan of intervention. Speaks are based on quality of argument and organization, not the way you sound. I hate unwarranted spikes or theory preempts sprinkled in between cards. If you are making a new argument get a new sheet.

I default to a logical decision-making paradigm. As a result I prefer topic-centered debate but I am totally opened to warranted reasons as to why that is a bad metric for debate.

I think the link (or violation or mutual exclusivity, same concept different name) is the most important part of every position and debaters who get good speaker points and win regularly in front of me have robust discussions on the link.

I place a high value on quality evidence and think preparation is the cornerstone of the educational aspects of this activity. I think that extensions of evidence should be more than just blippy tag extensions. If you aren’t extending warrants, I am not going to find them in the evidence for you after the round.

Speed: I think clear speed improves debate. I am cool with any clear speed that isn’t being used to intentionally exclude your opponent or other judges on a panel. I will say that it seems like a lot of HS LD students rely on the email chain for judges to get their warrants: this practice will likely result in diminished speaker points and possibly a poor decision on my part. It is probably a good idea to slow down a bit on tags and make it clear when a tag starts and a card ends. Flying through blippy theory shells at 400 wpm just seems like a bad idea if you want me to flow it all.

Specific Arguments

Topicality: I assume it’s a voter but the neg needs to explain why and I will listen to reasons why it shouldn’t be, extra and fx are up for debate, abuse is just a marginally more persuasive standard, standards are reason to prefer an interp, I don’t like to vote on RVIs unless they are well warranted and even then the aff sneezing on the flow might be enough for me to ignore it. I will probably ignore jargon that is unwarranted like just saying reasonability or competing interps without explanations.

DAs: I will vote on linear and unique Das. I don’t believe a negative needs one to win a round. I am usually very skeptical of politics but still vote offence/defense paradigm on it.

Theory: Most specs are just defense to solvency for me. I definitely get they are a valuable part of a strategy for time and fairness reasons but I find them generally unpersuasive. I will vote on them though if mishandled by the affirmative(or negative) . All that said if you have a really interesting super spec procedural I’ll listen to it with an open mind. 5 off all procedurals will tank your speaks.I generally think there are ways to resolve theoretical objections that don’t necessitate a ballot on theory.

Ks: As with every other position I want the link to be specific and prefer the literature to be in the context of our topic. I think the necessity of framework depends on the nature of the alternative and the presented 1AC. I generally view links as a DA to the perm. I think you need a stable alt text.

Counterplans: I don’t think conditionality is a problem but you can read whatever against the CP. I don’t think you have to establish ME in the NC but I think it ends up being more persuasive if the AR concedes it. I prefer if they have an advocate, but not a deal breaker. You should have a stable CP text. Open to perm theory, same concept as other theory shells though.

Defense: I’m predisposed to believe it’s not a voting issue but if someone concedes some fwk that says it is I guess I would vote for it. This applies to answering neg positions as well.

Performance: I am totally fine with it, but again I think it’s important to explain how it relates to an affirmation or negation of the resolution. That being said, I am completely open to arguments about why resolution centered debate is bad.

A2 K/Performance AC/NC: ENGAGE. Just framing your way out the debate is super boring to me. Cut cards answering their method. If they give you links, use them.

(Paradigm largely stolen from Spencer Orlowski) -> we view debate similarly. I will make a more specific paradigm soon.

NFA LD PARADIGM

To be honest, aside from evaluating practice debates, I have never formally judged an NFA LD round at a tournament since graduating. That being said, I will try and give you my best insight into how I tend to evaluate debates if you have me at NFA. Please feel free to ask me any questions my paradigm does not answer for you before the round begins.

Pet Peeves

Topicality without carded interp

Super short cards with no warrants

Super long tags on policy Affs

Tags that don't use the rhetoric of the card (powertags)

Lack of Sign-Posting

Speed

I am cool with it so long as your opponent is. If I am unable to follow you due to delivery rate I will say speed. If you are unclear I will say clear. There is a difference. I expect a debater to audibly say clear or speed. I am not ok with speed being a tool of exclusion and will be persuaded if I see a clear abuse of speed. I am also not ok with debaters calling speed as a competitive tool when they can truly keep up and are debating at speeds as fast as, if not faster than their opponent.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are not largely determined by how pretty you sound. Rather, I use them as a reward for your talent as a critical thinker. Things I evaluated include but are not limited to - organization, pointing out logical inconstancies or double turns, articulating implications of impacts, etc.

Theory/Topicality

I probably will not be persuaded by theory positions that would be better articulated as solvency deficits to the Aff (i.e. - vagueness). That does not mean I will not vote on these positions, but it is an uphill battle to argue I should drop the debater when in reality it is just a solvency question. Other than that, I do believe that theory is meant to protect yourself and please use it as necessary. Obviously, proven abuse is preferable but if you persuade me that potential abuse should be a voter, then I will vote there. I am particularly persuaded on theory/T if you show me the abuse on clearly on each sheet. Please please please weigh the impacts of standards. Too often, theory/T debates do not resolve which standard is most important. Reminder - please card interps and number your violations clearly if there are multiple.

AC's

Don't really care about the structure of an Aff. If the Aff is not topical, it helps to provide justification in the 1AC as to why the Aff is not topical. This is not necessary, but I think it will make framework and T preempts much cleaner and easier for you.

DA's

Do your thing. I am persuaded by logical responses to DAs if they are true (i.e. Uniqueness overwhelms the link). If your link is not specific to the Aff, then please contextualize the Aff to your link after you read the link ev.

CP's

I have no on face rejection to any types of CPs or their respective status. That being said, I can definitely be persuaded why certain types of CPs should be excluded via a theory debate. I also don't think you need to solve every harm of the Aff.

K's

Do your thing. Aff specific links are preferred. If you are reading generic or topic links, then please contextualize them to the Aff in the NC. I am cool with kicking the alt and using the link and impact as a linear DA to the case but that does open you up to the theory debate which I am not afraid to vote on.

Evaluating Arguments

I default to a comparative advantages frame work. If there is a 1% chance the Aff can solve, and the neg has no substantial harm to weigh against the Aff, I won't vote on solvency as a stock issue. I am not persuaded by lazy try-or-die arguments, but when done properly this framing is persuasive. Weigh, weigh, weigh. If you aren't reading extinction level impacts, that's fine. But please provide some framework/weighing mechanism if you take this approach.

HIGH SCHOOL LD/POLICY PARADIGM

I don't judge these events as much but I have experience in both. Ask me particular questions before round but here is a quick list of things you may want to know.

- Aff doesn't have to be topical if there is a good justification

- That doesn't mean I won't vote on FW or Theory

- I will vote on T - not a hack but I don't throw it out the window like some judges

- Speed Friendly

- K friendly but you will need to explain the lit in your own words to contextualize high theory to the Aff

- I prefer specific vs general links on the K debate (extra-speaks will likely follow if you have case specific links to your K)

- Weigh weigh weigh

- Collapse

I debated PF for 4 years at NSU University School in South Florida. I vote off the flow and am fine with speed (as long as you’re clear). Here are some more specific considerations.

1. Extend both warrants and impacts, and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. I vote for the team that has given me the easiest route to the ballot without intervention on my behalf.

2. For first speaking teams, I'm fine with terminal defense being extended from rebuttal to final focus.

3. Offense must be extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote for it.

4. I'll call cards if you ask me to call them, or if I have doubts about them.

5. Please signpost throughout the round!! This especially applies to the summary/final focus speeches — if I don't know where you are on the flow, it is much less likely I flow everything you say.

6. I determine speaker points based on (1) clarity (2) civility (3) strategy.

(humor is also appreciated)

Feel free to ask any other specific questions before the round starts.

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Note for Section 230 topic: I feel like for full transparency on this topic you should know I'm currently a 3L at Minnesota Law so have more background knowledge than normal on this topic. I will still do my absolute best to be a blank slate but to help me out please do your best to represent legal concepts + the legal system accurately!

Note for Sections/State: I tend to judge this tournament much more traditionally!

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

NFA LD

I competed in LD for four years. So, I have a great deal of familiarity with the format and arguments. With that being said, my involvement with debate since graduating in 2015 has been pretty sparse. This means that I’m ok with speed, enjoy critical debate, and can evaluate most arguments, however I’d stay away from topic-specific jargon in front of me.

Topicality

I do not require proven abuse on topicality. I generally believe topicality to be jurisdictional. In other words, I have been asked to answer a question, “Should we pass the resolution or not?” If the affirmative is deemed to be non-topical, it means that they have not given me a reason to pass the resolution (the only question I have the power to answer), thus I cannot affirm. When evaluating T, I usually default to competing interpretations, whichever interp is better is the one I’ll use to evaluate the affirmative. I generally do not find reasonability to be a persuasive argument but eh, do you. On the flip side, I’m unlikely to simply gut-check an affirmative.

Potentially important to note - T is not a voting issue for the affirmative. I’m pretty unlikely to vote on an RVI

Questions of Abuse/Specification Arguments

My threshold for these arguments is pretty high. But, I think they can be persuasive in two contexts. First, if they are applied to the solvency debate ie. there is no enforcement mechanism which will make it impossible for the aff to solve. Second, if there’s proven abuse in round. Proven abuse obviously makes these arguments more persuasive, but it’s not a silver bullet either.

K’s

I generally enjoy listening to K’s that are well thought out. I’m not usually a huge fan of generic K’s but that certainly doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to vote for them. It is usually easier to vote for a K when I understand the alternative and exactly why the Aff would not fit into it.

CP’s

I think counter-plans can be conditional and the negative can always default back to defending the status quo. I also think counter-plans can be topical (but, that’s in the rules now). When a counter-plan is introduced, I view my job as evaluating the benefits between two proposed paths forward and determining which might be the most beneficial.

Cross-X

I suppose CX is binding if y’all say it is. I’m not flowing so please make sure anything important from that period makes it into a speech.

Random things:

Slowing down on tags is always a good thing.

I flow authors so feel free to extend with author names.

Even if you’re winning everything, it’s never a good idea to go for everything

Public Forum

Hey, I have been involved in debate in some capacity for the last ten years. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years. I then competed for 4 years in collegiate LD (one person policy) at Western Kentucky University. For the past two years, I've coached high school policy and high school public forum.

Questions before the round: Asking me about my experience with debate or my general paradigm are not good questions to ask me or any other judge. Have specific questions or refrain from asking any.

Speed: I can keep up with you but speed shouldn't be used as an exclusionary tool. If you are in a round with me where your opponent is speaking too quickly, say something. If your opponent has indicated that speed has impacted their ability to compete, I expect you to make changes or your speaker points will be severely reduced.

Pre-Flowing: This should be done BEFORE the round. You know your arguments prior to the round so you should be able to pre-flow them. It will make me extremely upset if you waste time at the start of the round (especially when we are running late or on a tight schedule)

Cross X: Cross X should mainly be used to clarify arguments and get concessions. I am not flowing. Anything that you think is needed to inform my argument should be extended on the right argument in a later speech. Blatant rudeness in CX shouldn't be a thing and will result in a drastic reduction in your speaker points. General assertiveness is totally ok and even encouraged.

Theory: Theory arguments generally don't have a place in Public Forum. That is different in other debate events. However, for theory arguments that aren't topicality, usually proven abuse is necessary to win. I am willing to hear arguments about what the other team justifies but they should be well warranted.

Summary to Final Focus: Anything you would like to be a part of the final focus should be in the summary. That includes defense. It's pretty abusive for you not to extend things, force your opponent to respond based on every possible scenario, and then go for a single warrant/argument.

When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. If you are still talking, it will not be adjudicated in the round.

I debated PF for four years for Oakwood in Los Angeles. 

- Speed is fine short of spreading. 

- I'm fine with defense being extended from rebuttal to FF for first-speaking teams in particular, but it would advantage second-speaking teams to extend defense in summary as well since you know what they're going for at that point. I'll be more likely to buy defense that's been well-explained and giving yourself two speeches to do that is a good idea. 

- I'm fine with theory in cases of egregious abuse but warrant it well for me if you want me to vote on it. 

- Warrant and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. 

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

Connor Fraundorf
Public Forum debater at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2014-2017)

Public Forum Philosophy (updated for 2020 season)

Public Forum is a research based event and is more about evidence usage than persuasive speaking. With that in mind, your speeches should center around your evidence and using that evidence to persuade me. That being said, I implore debaters to speak clearly and avoid spreading.

Most debates will come down to an offense/defense paradigm, with me voting for the team with the most offense at the end of the debate. Going for straight defense typically won't be persuasive in front of me unless you warrant why your terminal defense is a reason to prefer you over any offense the other team has.

My ballot is constantly evolving throughout the round. After each speech, I evaluate the debate at that point and create an RFD. This RFD remains fluid until the end of the debate and allows me to come to decisions pretty quickly. I prefer not to call for evidence but will if explicitly directed to.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

I evaluate the round starting from the impacts, meaning that the link level of the arguments you go for won't matter if you don't explain or weigh your impacts. The impact that is weighed the best is where I will start from. From there, I will evaluate the arguments that link into the most important impact to decide who to vote for.

Something to be careful of is just leaving your arguments at a nebulous implication. For example, do not just say that your impact is an arms race. I need you to explain why an arms race is explicitly bad. A example of this: An arms race is bad because it causes war that leaves to lives lost (Warrant the argument better than I just did though). Do not assume that I will do the work for you. A team that makes that link and explanation will have such an easier time winning my ballot because it'll guarantee that you are ahead on weighing. 

For more, ask me questions or see Jake Mengarelli**

**I will not call for evidence unless you explicitly tell me to. That's the only difference between Jake and me

Also, I will probably dock speaks if you use puns. Jokes are encouraged, but puns will likely be punished (no pun intended). 

If you want higher speaks, bring me food :)

Affiliations: University School (FL), Northwestern University

I competed nationally for four years in PF. I can handle quick speaking, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something that you say. I appreciate all forms of weighing and believe offensive arguments must be in summary and final focus. You should signpost throughout your speeches to guarantee that I get what you say down on my flow in the proper location.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

Background:

4 years of national circuit public forum at Poly Prep.

Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman.

Speaking/Speed

I can flow decently high speeds but don't speak fast just to speak fast. I'd honestly prefer you give me "lay" speaking style with strong flow content. The thing I care about most is that I can understand what you're saying. If you speak fast but are clear and articulate, then I'll be fine. If it's early in the morning or late at night, please go easy me, as I will likely be tired. Strong rhetoric, humor, and civility to your opponents are good ways to get high speaks.

How I Vote

I vote for the team that I perceive has given me the easiest way to vote without any intervention on my behalf. The easiest place to vote, for me, is always an offensive argument [an argument that advances your position and not one that merely disproves your opponents’] that has been completely extended with all of its components into both summary and final focus, and weighed comparatively against your opponent’s impacts. That means you have not only shown why such an argument is important, but why it is more important than any the other team presents.

When neither team has completely done this for me (i.e., you have not weighed, or your full argument is not extended properly, etc.), then I am forced to intervene in order to determine who has won the round. I will try to do so in the way that seems to make the most sense to me and requires the least amount of thought; i.e., if one team’s impacts are much bigger than the other’s and nobody has weighed, I will vote off the bigger impact. However, my interpretation of what may constitute a “bigger impact” is entirely subjective; you do not want to rely on my internal weighing mechanism to decide the round for you. Sometimes when nobody has weighed, I've decided rounds on which team's arguments were extended more thoroughly or warranted better. If nobody has weighed, for example, but Team A didn't extend impacts in summary, that gives me a reason to prefer Team B.

I want you to force my ballot by explaining how one or two issues in the round are where I must vote; almost quite literally, I want you to write my ballot for me in final focus. Even if you think the round is obvious, treat me like an idiot and explain thoroughly how you win.

Offense and Defense Extensions in Summary and Final Focus

First of all, you should never try to cover every single argument made in the cases/rebuttals in the summary and final focus when I’m judging you, or just ever. The shorter speech times simply don’t allow for this. Instead, I expect the summary and final focus to collapse onto a few issues and explain why those issues are the most important and why I must vote for you on those issues.

I do not require the first speaking team to extend defensive responses to your opponents’ case into first summary unless they were frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. This means you should take advantage of this by spending the entire time in first summary front lining, extending, and weighing your case. If you extend defense that the other team hasn't addressed yet, you are literally wasting time and I will simply stare at you.

All offense you want me to vote off of, however, including turns to your opponents’ case, should be in both summaries. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for.

Extensions need to be more than “extend this card.” A full extension includes the argument/response, and all of its components. That includes all the internal logic behind the argument/response and its impacts/implications for the round.

If you extend a response from your partner’s rebuttal without telling me how it matters or what its utility is, for example, then I see it as intervention on my behalf to implicate that response for you. That means I am less inclined to buy it or evaluate it, unless I am in a round where very little has been implicated for me. My paradigm favors a team that gives fewer responses but explains how all of those responses/arguments matter over a team that dumps lots of arguments/responses in their speeches but doesn’t tell me why any of them are important.

In a round where there I can find no offense to vote for by either team in final focus, I still have to make a decision. In this circumstance, I default to the Negative, because I believe that the Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution to be true, while the Negative doesn’t really have such a burden. That being said, I am totally willing to accept reasons why I should default to the Affirmative in the case of no offense, if they’re given to me by the Aff team. However, this is a really bad/risky strategy to win my ballot. Instead of engaging in a defensive battle, please try to win offense. I am more inclined to vote off of any offense, even a risk of offense, than defense.

Theory

I am willing to accept theory in the case where there is an actual violation present in a round. However, if I perceive that a team is misapplying theory, especially as a cheap copout to win a round against a team that doesn’t understand theory, I will consider intervening and dropping the argument even if the other team doesn’t respond to it properly. While I normally try to intervene as minimally as possible, I believe that the circumstance of abuse of theory in public forum warrants my intervention because I think that misusing theory is really harmful for the activity. Theory can be necessary when there is a seriously abusive round, but when you’re just running some random theory argument to confuse the other team, that furthers the stigma against theory in PF, which means when teams actually need to use it, they might be penalized for it. Ultimately what this means is don’t run theory unless you actually believe the situation you’re in is abusive. If there’s a gray area, then I won’t just drop the theory argument myself and I’ll pay attention to who won it on the flow. But if, for example, one team runs a T shell about how NIBs are bad and the other team isn’t running any NIBs at all, I consider that a pretty blatant and obvious misapplication of theory, so I won’t evaluate the shell even if it’s dropped. In this case, I won’t automatically drop the team who ran the theory, but I won’t evaluate the theory in my decision.

Evidence

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true or if a team changes the way that they cite a card (e.g. a 50% increase becomes 500%), though these are rare occasions. I will dock your speaks if it turns out you're misrepresenting evidence and drop the card/probably the argument from the round depending on the circumstance; I don't drop the debater unless there is a formal evidence challenge or the opposing team wins a theory argument telling me why miscut evidence means I should drop the debater.

Refer to Doug Miller's paradigm. 

*I'm not inclined to vote off of theory just because I understand it. I will only do so if there is crystal clear evidence of abuse/skew that you are pointing out in a well-constructed, thought-out manner. 

If you incorporate a different Goldlink reference into each speech I will no doubt, on the spot, give you double 30s. (Edited b/c too many teams just threw one random set of Goldlink lyrics into their constructives.)

Please Weigh

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

If you are going to include a framework please be sure to connect it to your impacts. I'll vote off of impact calc through the lense of whichever framework wins.

Weighing is the most important thing, link weigh if both sides link into the same impacts. If you plan on meta weighing be prepared for some more judge interference in terms of decision making, so be cautious! I want to hear the analytics behind the weighing as well, and be comparative.

Frontline! Defense in the second rebuttal! Narrative! Extend actual evidence!

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

I am ok with Ks IF they have a direct link into being a prereq of the topic. Prereq-ing the activity itself is also ok, but I would prefer it connect to the specific topic.

Lastly, please don't be rude. I will drop you if you are rude.

Have fun! This is an special part of your life. Cherish it.

No new cards in second summary because as K Dot said, "Your rebuttal a little too late" (but you don't necessarily have to frontline in second rebuttal, only if you think it will be advantageous).

Jokes, puns, and references to hip-hop or popular shows Rick and Morty, Breaking Bad, American Vandal, Master of None, or The Office will be rewarded.

If for some reason this does not give you enough information about how I evaluate rounds, feel free to ask me in round!

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

I am a pretty straight forward policy maker, weigh your impacts and I will vote on the cost-benefit analysis. As for speed, I may handle moderately quick speaking, but all out speed will leave gaps in my flow, and I will have a difficult time voting for those arguments. Tell me a well-warranted story about why I should vote for you.

I have debated 4 years of PF and graduated in 2017.

Speed: Any PF speed is fine. When my flowing game is weak I miss author names so be clear with signposting and explaining what your evidence says when extending it in late speeches.

Evidence: I will call for a card if a debater tells me to in late speeches or if I think/know the card is misrepresented or if it has been significantly contested in the round. Please do not misconstrue evidence. If you commit and egregious violation I WILL drop you with 0 speaks. If you misrepresent a card slightly I will either not evaluate it or read what the card has to say and evaluate it as written (depending on the level of abuse). I don't expect you to read a full card verbatim; paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't misconstrue things. Dates would be nice when reading a card for the first time but I'm not gonna drop you for not reading dates.

Late Speeches/Extensions: Defense in rebuttal does not need to be extended in first summary (unless you are extending something that is covered in second rebuttal) but should be in second summary. If it is completely ignored by the other team, I might let the second speaking team extend it straight into second FF but don't count on it. Extensions in summary can be a bit blippy and I'll let it slide because the speech has a ton of responsibilities but don't drop something big like all of your impacts or links. Extensions in final focus should have a fully developed argument or else it'll be hard for me to vote there. Try to do weighing in both late speeches but I won't penalize you if the weighing in summary is bad/not fully developed/doesn't really exist.

Second Rebuttal: Don't need to cover your own case but do so if you think it is strategic.

Ks/Theory/Non-standard Arguments: Feel free to run whatever arguments you want as long as they are not offensive (I will drop you/an argument if you are blatantly offensive). I will vote off of Ks or Theory or anything you tell me to vote off of as long as you make the argument well and make it clear to me what the role of the ballot is. Please check for abuse in CX if you run theory or just make it abundantly clear that abuse has taken place. If you run a K make sure you develop it well (it's hard in a 4 minute constructive but can be done).

Speaker Points: Speaking well in debate is as much about making smart arguments and strategic choices as it is about sounding pretty. If you debate well, you will get good speaks, unless you are mean in CX or say something offensive.

If you have any questions or think something in my paradigm is dumb, feel free to ask/argue with me about it!

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 2/19/23

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash of civ and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T. Usually that ends on the TVA flow.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

four-year PF debater from Millburn, mother of Jimmy Chen, unicorn pundit

way to win the round: clearly win an argument, clearly tell me why it's more important than what your opponents are winning

fun facts: I don't hold first summary speakers to the same standard as the second in terms of defense, but generally speaking if you want it to be in the ballot, it should be in the summary; I won't call evidence unless it's clearly disputed in round, if your opponent is miscutting, lmk to call it; I like super clear signposting and when you do the work for me; Absent a weighting mechanism, I'll default to the easiest path to the ballot; pls don't run Ks i'll get confused and have to ask Max for help during crossfire

be nice to your opponents and I'll be nice in speaks!!

let's have a good time

https://twitter.com/itsgirllcode/status/843164268107255808?lang=en

I debated national circuit PF for 4 years. 

Speed: I can follow basically anything as long as it's not straight spreading, but it probably won't advantage you if you don't emphasize anything. 

Off time road maps: if it helps you be clear, yes

Weighing: Don't go for a million issues-- I always hate when judges have super specific preferences, but for me and everyone else it definitely helps you to go for 2 issues max and WEIGH

Defense:

In summary: I often find that how I view the round doesn't change after summary. So if you need defense in summary to feel like you're winning the round, extend it. If you can win without defense and just with weighing, go for it. If you change your mind in FF and decide you want to extend defense (not turns) that has been cold dropped, you can do that whether you speak first or second.

In rebuttal: If you don't frontline terminal defense put on in rebuttal, I can't evaluate your argument. I still encourage teams to extend important pieces of defense into summary and final focus because if i were you i wouldn't trust a judge to (a) remember to look back to see your responses and (b) make sure I know why that defense is terminal/matters.

Tl;dr: If you don't signpost, weigh, or frontline, I can't guarantee you'll be happy with my decision.

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

I debated PF for 4 years at Newton South High School. I'm a flow judge and I can do speed, but I type in this kind of funky way so if I'm flowing on my computer don't speak excessively quickly out of mercy for my fingers. Here are some more specific considerations:

(1) I really value strong blocks and probability analysis. Phrased another way: in a close round, I'm likely to evaluate the round on risk of offense. If you can cast enough doubt on your opponents' arguments and use those responses to weigh, that is valuable on my flow.

(2) If you're first speaking, you don't have to extend defensive responses in summary if they aren't responded to in your opponents' rebuttal as long as you bring them up in FF. However, so that you can ingrain them in my mind and use them to weigh, it might be a good idea to bring them up in summary.

(3) I'm far more likely to vote for a team whose summary and FF speeches tell a story of what voting for them looks like and what problems I can solve if I vote for them. It makes me feel good. Please re-explain and extend your arguments in summary and final focus instead of just responding to your opponents' responses. A summary strategy that includes blippy extensions of arguments without a cohesive narrative is not incredibly appealing to me. Also, extensions of arguments should include both the author names for the evidence and the warrants that back those cards.

(4) Please signpost very clearly, especially in summary and final focus! It sucks for both of us when I get lost on the flow during summary and final focus.

(5) In terms of framing the round: I'm much more likely to be swayed by consequentialism (cost/benefit) than a discussion about morality or obligation or a kritik... I'm pretty traditionally PF. That said, I won't necessarily evaluate the round based on utilitarianism -- I think the actor in a resolution is pretty important and it's very reasonable to argue that they should act in their own best interest, not the best interest of everyone in the world. (2022 update: I hear PF has veered toward theory lately. I'm not opposed to theory on face and am willing to vote for teams running theory if it's executed purposefully and effectively.)

(6) I'll call cards if you ask me to call them, or if I have doubts about them. If you asked me to call a card in round and I don’t after, I won’t be offended if you remind me afterward, and I’ll let you know if I do want to see it. I don't care if you paraphrase your cards as long as you portray them accurately. It is also worth noting that if you misrepresent a card (intentionally or unintentionally -- there's now way for me to know!) but your opponents do not call you out on it or challenge you on your interpretation, I will accept the interpretation you offered. In other words, I'm less stringent about evidence than other judges; if you want your opponent's evidence to be disregarded, it is your burden to challenge it, not mine.

(7) I am very unlikely to resort to presumption to determine a round -- that is to say, I almost certainly won't "presume neg." If I find that neither side has any offense remaining (which is very unlikely) or that the offense on the flow is perfectly even (even less likely), I will try to adjudicate based on risk of offense. If I can't do that, I will adjudicate based on the intangibles (if I think that one side spoke better, did more prep, made more logical arguments, etc). If there is literally no difference there, I guess I'll presume.

(8) Be nice to your opponents in cross! Also I like good jokes. Try to win it but have fun with it and try to allow your opponents to enjoy themselves too.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

THE OG PARADIGM

Former Competitor: 2008 - 2011

Coach - 2011 - 2019

Speed - Go for it, I am not the best with speed but if you go for it, it isn't going to lose you points. I won't say clear or give you any indication that I am missing things though so you are taking a slight risk.

Weighing - Do it. Seriously, If I am given any clear weighing analysis in the round I will go for it. My resume and background reads like a moderate Republican's fantasy. You probably don't want me making personal decisions about how I think we should craft policy or evaluate vague concepts.

Signposting - Clearly tell me where you are going in the round. If I get confused I get disinterested and if I get disinterested I get onto Netflix and watch West Wing with the subtitles on.

Off-time Roadmaps - Do them. If you say you are going to read an overview or a framework, tell me where to put it or I will put in in my computer's trash file and empty it after your speech.

Crossfire - I might look like I am not paying attention to your crossfires. That's because I am not. Thats for you to clarify the round and for me to add detailed comments to the ballot. If something interesting happens, let me know in a speech. If you are going to start hitting someone, let me know and I will get out a camera.

Extending Defense - Meh. You don't really have to do this in my opinion but obviously if your opponents go through ink you might want to remind me of that fact, especially if it is on something you really want me to care about.

Weighing Pt.2 - Please do this. I am begging you.

SPECIAL LD EDITION

If I had a PF team that had the capacity to come this wouldn't be necessary but, for now, here we are. Doomed to dance this dance until my obligation of a minimum of three ballots are up and I have left your hopes and dreams broken at my feet.

Let's start this off on the right note. I know enough about LD and all of its components to be dangerous. In clearer terms, when you tell me what you are going to try to do I will conceptually understand what you are going for but I will lack the experience or wherewithal to implement your vision on my flow. See? Dangerous.

Don't take this to mean I don't care about the event or that I don't look forward to these rounds. Do take it to mean that if you are planning on taking any risks or doing anything tricky, that your opponent stands to benefit from my ignorance as much as you.

Speed (Preface): Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Speed is an excellent tool to put more arguments out there on the flow but maybe we want to make sure I understand the basic ones you are dropping first? Just a suggestion. And no, I won't do that "Clear" business. Adapt or die. This is forensic darwinism.

Technical Debate: Solid meh. You can. I won't drop you for it and I get that the adaptations I am asking for will mean that you need to adjust in ways that will force you to use it.

Defaults: Let's return to that dangerous thing. I don't really have any default preferences that I have developed over my lackluster experience judging. You can read my paradigm below for PF to see if you glean any information from that but otherwise, I am tabula rasa to a fault and will stick to what I am given in the round despite any personal beliefs or pre-existing knowledge.

Disclosure: Unless you are disclosing who wins the round before I need to judge it, it's not something I really care about. I buy why disclosure is a good thing and I also get how it can be abused given enough resources. If it becomes an issue I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round and not the ones in my head.

I hope this helps although it undoubtedly will leave you in a state of fear akin to the people of Pompeii as the ash cloud descended on their once-idyllic town.

For email chains my email is jstagey@gmail.com.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Public Forum Judging Paradigm:

All you need to know: Weigh.

Less relevant information:

*********************

Experience: 4 years mostly circuit PF, congress, extemp; college APDA

Criteria justifying intervention:

1. New arguments in 2nd FF

2. No weighing or implicating = forces me to make value judgements

3. Multiple routes to the ballot without weighing = I'll usually pick the cleanest

*********************

Speaker point criteria, in order of importance:

1. Be very clear and articulate with your explanations and each extensions; blippiness loses you points and clarity wins you points and rounds.

2. Be fluid and graceful as a speaker; persuasiveness.

3. Have a good strategy during crossfire and don't be a dick.

*********************

FAQ:

1. I don't care if you come back in 2nd rebuttal; sometimes it's effective and sometimes it's not.

2. Important defense really should be in 2nd summary and it's not a bad idea to have it in 1st summary.

3. I can follow speed but if you don't talk well at high speed I probably won't be able to flow well either.

4. I'll vote off any argument, including theory, but you must have good/persuasive theory (as you would any other argument).

I did PF for four years in HS and have coached PF for 4 years since. I was head PF coach for the Bronx High School of Science in the 20-21 year, and am an incoming graduate student in Philosophy. My pronouns are he/him.

Students' safety and comfort is my top priority in round so I will drop debaters who, in whatever way, make the round less safe/comfortable for other debaters (purposefully or otherwise). I also encourage debaters in the round to press claims to this effect in or outside of speeches, whether those claims are against their opponents, me, an observer, etc. Feel free to get in touch with me via email (nathan.witkin@gmail.com), including during the round.

Please default to they/them pronouns, should you be unsure of anyone's preferences.

---

I'm fine with speed, K debate, theory, etc. but clarity (w/r/t explanation and articulation) is a must esp. online. Consider that the odds I miss something scales with speed. I may ask for clarification if your audio cuts out at any point.

Defense is not "sticky," i.e. must be extended in every speech just like offense. Following from this, extension through ink is fine if your opponents don't extend the ink. This includes cases where a team extends conceded defense into summary, but not into FF. The defense is lost if not extended into FF. Second rebuttal still should frontline, because I don't accept completely new frontlining in second summary (you can still develop a previous defense debate in new ways).

New weighing in either summary is fine, but not in FF. As with defense in rebuttal/summary, I'm relatively permissive when it comes to what is "new," so you have some leeway to further develop prior disputes about weighing/defense/offense in FF. The rough threshold is whether what you're adding in later speeches can be reasonably construed as entailed by something said earlier (it is usually permissible to further specify or explain something, even if it has been mostly implicit up until the later speech).

I won't call evidence unless you tell me to, or unless I need it to make any decision at all (for instance, if the round hinges entirely on one piece of evidence).

On progressive arguments [in PF]: as a result of my academic background, there is a solid chance I will be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on what you are running. That means I may have a higher standard for what a sufficient explanation of the argument ought to look like. Your argument should be well-explained enough that unfamiliar opponents won't be classed out of the round by jargon. Relatedly, don't treat abstract impacts like those to reinforcing patriarchy (etc.) as magical trump cards for outweighing more generic PF impacts (I think this does a serious disservice to them, and often evinces a lack of understanding of the arguments themselves and their significance). That goes for post-fiat arguments and for pre-fiat ones you might be weighing against (for example) the educational value of traditional substance-debates. If you think your impact in either case should get special priority, weigh it like any other. The bottom line for me is that what you're reading is ultimately just like any other argument, and won't on face be treated differently because you're drawing from one academic literature (e.g. post-colonial studies, critical sociology, etc.), as opposed to another (economics, political science, etc.), unless of course you give me an uncontested or contested but won reason why.

Two addendums for rare(ish) situations:

1. I don't allow second-speaking team to trick first by frontlining one contention and then going for the other (since, if defense is not sticky, first team might then have dropped all their defense on the non-frontlined, but surprisingly extended contention if they did not predict the trick, and then lose access to it later since it wasn't in first summary). It's conceivable I might let this possibility stand, which would require first team to always extend at least one piece of terminal defense on non-frontlined args as insurance, but this seems like an unnecessary burden.

2. Weighing that is introduced in first rebuttal does not need to be frontlined in second rebuttal. I allow the second team to respond to weighing for the first time in second summary (it still might be a good idea to also respond in the rebuttal).

Let me know if you have any further questions before the round starts.

 I debated in public forum for 4 years and was ranked 2nd in the country at the end of the regular national season.

I can handle speed, but that does not mean you can do anything close to spreading (unless you are from Mission San Jose). I prefer you speak less quickly and more smartly.

I will try to vote off of the flow, but will choose to evaluate important issues more.

I'll hold you to the standard of "easily googelable" such that if you are telling me something that is just false or I evaluate to be false based on a quick Google search I won't evaluate it. The opposing team should tell me to do this but I may also just take it upon myself. That's the only intervention I'd do because I do not think I should be taking what people say as on face true and have the burden on one team to disprove every bogus claim of the other.

There should be defense in the second summary, but not necessarily in the first.

Weigh or you may see me randomly flipping a coin at the end of the round. Its totally not me deciding the round with a coin flip. Pay no attention to it.

Feel free to run whatever you want, I'll evaluate any argument that isn't dumb.

If you can make me laugh you get a 30. 

I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.

common question answers:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!