Tabroom.com

Georgetown PF Congress and Online Speech Debate Tournament

2017 — Washington, DC/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mia AAssar Poly Prep Country Day School None

Sonny Abbasi The Potomac School

Stefan Bauschard Lakeland

Peter Beebe Hire

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2017 at 6:57 AM EDT

I am currently a freshman at American University. I debated in Public Forum debate for 4 years at Johnston High School in Johnston, Iowa. Being from the Midwest, I do have similar judging preferences as your average Midwest Judge, however, I competed at the TOC and at circuit tournaments so I am open to more Coastal technical debates.

As a competitor, I absolutely hated those judges that interfered in a round and made up their own conclusions in their decisions. Therefore, I simply judge based off what is on the flow at the end of the round. This means:

1) I will not call for any cards unless explicitly asked to by either team. If the other team is lying about evidence, call them out for it and only then will I call for the card.

2) I do not bring my personal bias/thoughts into a round. What I hear is what I judge. However, I will drop a team for offensive and bigoted language and arguments.

Short Version:

1) You need to sign post and keep a clean flow.

2) Extend only the most important arguments and the reasons why you win them. No blippy arguments.

3) Summary and Final Focus should be similar.

4) Don’t lie about evidence.

5) Some speed is fine, but too much is a problem for me. I value quality, refined argumentation over simply high volumes of arguments. (No 50 page card dumps).

6) If you get nothing else from this paradigm, consider me a flay Midwestern judge.

Long Version:

1) I will not vote for blippy arguments. If you want me to vote for it, it needs to be in every possible speech as well as the claim, warrant, and impact for the argument.

2) Clearly signpost. I flow, but I don’t know where to write it unless you tell me where to put it.

3) I do not expect every argument and piece of evidence in your Summary/Final Focus. The best teams are the teams that know how to collapse well and do proper impact calculus. That being said, if you think the other team dropped something important, tell me they dropped it and why I should vote for that.

4) I debated as both 1st and 2nd speaker for a substantial time. I honestly think Summary is the most important speech within the debate rounds. I believe rounds are won and lost in this speech. I am fine with both line-by-line and voter based Summaries, as long as they adequately condense and frame the round.

5) Summary and Final Focus are meant to be mirror images. I expect similar structures and points in both. However, Summaries should be more focused on the warrants, with major impact calculus coming in the Final Focus. I should know what is going to be in your FF based on your Summary.

6) You must explain the logic behind your evidence. It is not enough to simply say “Daniel Griswold from CATO said this… and that’s why it’s true”. Explain why your card makes sense and don’t just name drop.

7) I PREFER the 2nd Rebuttal responds to the 1st, I think it makes the debate more engaging and full of clash. I think it is harder to win without responding until the Summary. However, it is simply a preference, and I will not vote you down for not responding until Summary, do whatever you know best.

8) I think Crossfire is a time for some very constructive and clash filled debate. Use this time to clarify the debate, but more importantly, take the debate to a more analytical and a deeper level during this time. I reward good Crossfire technique and etiquette in speaker points, however, anything important that comes up in CX needs to be brought up in subsequent speeches.

9) I am not great with high levels of speed. My cases were typically 900 words and I would not suggest you reading much more than that (average 225 words per minute). Anything above 250 words per minute will be near impossible for me to flow and follow. You will know if you are speaking too fast if I stop flowing and put my pen down.

EVIDENCE:

For some reason, PF debaters have become notorious for lying about evidence. I have zero tolerance for this. My preference for evidence includes:

1) All evidence read in case should be readily available. Cut cards is fine in my opinion, as long as there is plenty of context (general rule of thumb is the paragraph before and after, but varies piece to piece).

2) Any evidence read as a block should also be readily available with context on cut cards.

3) At the very least, you need to be able to provide Author/Publisher’s name, and year of publication when asked.

4) I was a paperless debater and so I have no problem with pulling evidence up on your computer. Just understand you are taking the risk of technical difficulties.

5) In the event that you are unable to provide the requested card, it will simply be dropped from the flow and we will move on.

6) There is no prepping when calling for evidence. While the other team is looking for the evidence, you can not be prepping.

7) Again, I will only call for evidence at the end of the round if you tell me to call it.

How I give speaker points (stolen from the great Mollie Clark):

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. No stumbles or drops.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and 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.

Priya Bhandarkar Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Ani Bhaskara Edgemont HS None

Lindsay Brooker Medina Senior HS None

David Brown Kugnus ACTS

Bilal Butt Lakeland

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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. Good eloquence, analysis, and 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.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Alec Camhi Walt Whitman

Jeff Cheung Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Andrew Choi Kugnus ACTS

Jenna Chung Kugnus ACTS None

Joseph Clancy BL Debate

Last changed on Thu August 22, 2019 at 10:42 PM EDT

APDA 2019-2020 update (May 2019):

APDA:

1. My first intuition (with rare exceptions to follow) is to be a technical/flow judge. This means I vote on the moral framework best warranted (hopefully) or most consented to by both sides (in absence of warrants). Without sufficiently explicit weighing arguments, I'll vote on what I think outweighs, and my intuitions are probably different than yours.

2. If both sides agree that I should vote on the prefiat/theory/kritical debate, then I will do this. If one side, at any point, says, "evaluating prefiat arguments on the flow begs the question on how to evaluate prefiat debate," then I will consider the question about how to evaluate prefiat debate inadjudicable, and I will intervene and evaluate prefiat content the way I think is correct (eg if you did something I think merits dropping, then I will drop you, otherwise I will not). The remaining speeches can still persuade me about what I should think is correct.

[August update] - I expect the above quote to be stated during your first opportunity to do so following a new prefiat argument from your opponents, and for the introducers of the prefiat level not to say the above quote. If you attempt to engage with the prefiat level, then I won't allow you to kick it.

3. It is your responsibility to make sure everyone is able to write down and understand your arguments. If I understood your argument, but I do not think your opponents understood it (within reason), then I will presume the most charitable interpretation for them. The exception to this is PMR arguments which are not new, in which case you can use whatever jargon you need for me to understand the argument, since your opponents can't respond anyway.

4. New arguments in PMR get sniff tested. This means that if I think they would be easy to beat in an additional opp-speech, I will apply those easy responses.

List of things that correspond to my intuitions, or which I like, in no particular order:

Epistemic intuitionism, ethical nihilism, political libertarianism/conservatism, consistency, the rules of debate, fairness, not using excessive speed, reverse voter issues, APDA debate being about whether or not case statement is more likely true or false, and debating about economics or philosophy.

[August update part 2] 5. Speaks are subjective, and they do not exist in the best of all possible worlds. The speaks I give you will reflect this injustice. This means my speaks distribution has a high mean and a high variance.

PF:

I have spent more time on the college parli circuit than PF, so my judging style is likely to lean toward that (although I make a concerted effort to judge for the style I'm watching).

I have a strong preference for arguments that impact to util, because my presumption is that this is what PF debate is about, but this can be overcome with sufficient winning framework warranting. I will not call for evidence unless it is necessary for my RFD and contested. I will notice when you make new arguments in the FF and discard them. Tag arguments you want me to vote on through the Summary and FF, because I won't vote for anything not extended throughout (unless neither team has any standing impacts). Plans are not allowed in Public Forum debate. If you want me to like you, bring the original evidence, not just the cards, and do not paraphrase it in your first speech.

Kirsten Craft Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Ranga Dandi Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Sirisha Durbhakula Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM EDT

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

Michael Fiedorowicz Edgemont HS

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2018 at 12:02 PM PDT

Michael Fiedorowicz

Bellarmine College Prep '14

Georgetown University '18

I enjoy traditional LD rounds rooted in competing value frameworks. But, I am happy to vote for any type of argumentation, though the threshold for explaining your path to the ballot on non-traditional arguments may be higher.

I was essentially completely out of the activity for about three years until this past summer 2017 and have only been intermittently involved since, so keep that mind. Most importantly, that probably means slow down for analytics and otherwise short/quick arguments. Please actually adjust and be clearer or slower if I call for it.

Clarifying and weighing will win most rounds. The less comparative work I am doing when making my decision, the better it is for everyone. You should want my RFD to sound a lot like the reasoning you present in your last speech.

Matt DeLateur and I share similar views on what you probably find relevant:

This is from his judge philosophy: “Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.”

Ks - I was not a K debater, nor did I encounter K debaters often. That doesn't mean I'm not receptive to Ks, it just means that I am not particularly well-versed in the lit; in other words, you yourself should be well-versed in it or at least be capable of coherently articulating your K and how it operates in the round.

Serena Fitzgerald BC Academy

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:43 AM PDT

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Jack Friedman Edgemont HS None

Hannah Friedrick Medina Senior HS None

Cayman Giordano Edgemont HS

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 1:00 PM EDT

Contact:

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

Online Judging:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

Speed:

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

Event-specific stuff:

CX:

Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.

L-D:

The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.

PF:

I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters. If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech. If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech,
SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture. My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.

Parliamentary:

Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
"but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.

I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.

If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.

Limited-Prep

Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.

Interp/Platforms/Congress

How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Elsa Givan Edgemont HS

Last changed on Sun November 11, 2018 at 8:24 PM EDT

Elsa Givan

College Preparatory School

Georgetown University

A few quick things:

- I was both a 2A and a 2N in high school. While I read mostly policy affs, I went for the kritik often on the neg, so I’m pretty flexible with argument choices.

- I will work hard to be as objective as possible and evaluate tech over truth unless told otherwise.

- Specificity and effort are rewarded in my book. If it’s clear you’ve done the research and have extensive knowledge of the topic, I will boost your points accordingly.

- Framing the debate is key – the 2NR and 2AR should aim to write my ballot.

- I’d prefer you read enough of your evidence to make a complete argument, so if you’re going to highlight two lines of a card and call it an internal link then it’s probably not worth reading at all. Evidence = claim and warrant (same goes for arguments).

- Please be clear - if you aren’t, I’ll yell it a few times but eventually I will give up. I’m a pretty expressive person so look up every now and then - if I’m obviously frustrated, you should change something.

- Debate is fun – act like it! Be nice and have a good sense of humor.

- Feel free to ask me questions before the debate if I haven’t covered something or you’d like clarification.

Paperless: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. If your computer crashes, we’ll stop prep.

Topicality: Topicality needs to be substantively developed for me to vote on it. Please do not be incomprehensibly fast on T in the 2AC, because I will sympathize with the negative if there are missed arguments. Remember to impact your interpretation.

Theory: Theory must be well developed and impacted, like topicality. I am more sympathetic to some theory arguments than others. I never went for conditionality as a 2A and I have a high threshold for this argument – I will vote on it if you win it, but winning it requires substantial time investment in both the 1AR and the 2AR. Other theoretical objections such as international fiat, 50 state fiat, conditions/consult/process theory, etc. are much more persuasive to me.

Case: I really like a good case debate. The 2AC and 1AR need to be clear and warranted on case. I’d prefer if the negative collapsed an extensive case debate from the block into a few winnable arguments in the 2NR instead of going for everything.

Counterplans: I’m a huge fan of a case specific counterplan (especially PICs), so the more specific you get, the better your points/chances will be. Conversely, I’m not a huge fan of process/delay (and consult if it’s hypergeneric) counterplans because I don’t think they’re competitive. I will be persuaded by perm do the CP and theory arguments by the aff. That being said, I was definitely guilty of going for the commission CP and others like it in high school – it’s certainly winnable in front of me, but I’d rather see you go for something more specific.

Disadvantages: I am a strong believer in credible defense. If the aff can point out logical problems with the disad, I will reduce the risk substantially (even if it’s not a carded argument). There can be zero risk of a disad. Clear articulation of the link in the context of the aff is essential. I think that carded arguments about how the disad turns/solves the case are persuasive.

Kritiks: I went for security a lot in high school and I understand it pretty well (same with most other IR-based K’s). Anything beyond that is going to take a high level of explanation and work to get my ballot.

Framework is important and underutilized on both sides - if you can really just lay down a beating on the other team on the framework debate, it will get you so far on every other part of the flow.

For the aff – defend your 1AC! Know who your authors are. Have cards that defend the studies of your authors and the method they used. Know what method they used! Create evaluative mechanisms for how I should evaluate evidence in the policymaking sphere (i.e. default to empirics and studies) and then explain why your evidence meets those mechanisms. I definitely prefer an impact turn debate to a permutation debate, but do what you gotta do.

For the neg - link debate is very important, and contextualizing it within the context of the aff is even more crucial. Question the scholarship of their authors and press them on internal links and logical take-outs in cross-ex – I think the best way to get mileage on the K is to have credible defense against the aff because it proves their epistemology is fundamentally bankrupt.

Critical Affs: Please be very clear about what the role of the ballot is and how I should evaluate the debate. Also, I’m inclined to agree with Brian Manuel that you must defend something, even if you’re not defending the topic. Your position must be debatable. While I will vote on framework, I prefer a case turn debate, a PIC, or a K. Understandably, a specific strategy is not always possible when debating an aff that doesn’t defend the topic, and framework may sometimes be your best option.

Edward Gu Edgemont HS None

Anil Gujaran Walt Whitman None

David Guo Edgemont HS None

Jun Hou Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Tony Huang Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Harrison Hurt Walt Whitman

Last changed on Tue March 6, 2018 at 2:47 PM EDT

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.

Ping Ji Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Ekaterina Kan Winston Churchill High School

Ram Lakshmi Ivy Bridge Academy

Luke Lamey Hire

Da In Lee BL Debate None

Joon Lee Huntmann Independent

Lu Li Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Likan Liang Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Iris Lin Edgemont HS

Yi Liu Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Na Luo Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Lindsay Mahowald Poly Prep Country Day School

Seth Mahowald Poly Prep Country Day School None

Matthew Malia Poly Prep Country Day School None

Harini Malik Cypress Woods None

Nikhil Malik Edgemont HS None

David Maluf Walt Whitman

Alex Mandadjiev Edgemont HS

Brian Manuel Edgemont HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:08 PM EDT

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Jeremy Metz The Potomac School

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 2:29 PM EDT

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Sid Nair Edgemont HS

Khalida Neelofar Ivy Bridge Academy

Last changed on Mon February 11, 2019 at 1:02 PM EDT

I am a Parent Judge. I have been judging PF for roughly 2 years.

Here are some important points to consider about my judging preferences:

- Be organized and clear. Speak loudly and clearly. Clarity is much more important to me than speed. If I cannot follow your arguments and miss them in my notes, I will not be able to evaluate those arguments and, possibly, will not be able to vote for you.

- Signposting is a must. Tell me what you are talking about before making your argument, so I know where to flow it and where it fits in the round. If you do not, there is a high chance I will not be able to follow your argument and, thus, cannot evaluate it in the round. Also, try to avoid technical jargon and tons of abbreviations—at the least, explain them to me and simplify the round.

- I will vote for the team that makes clear, logical, and realistic claims and does effective weighing of impacts. Have comparative reasoning behind your arguments that is persuasive. Also, explain to me why I should care more about your arguments and how they are more important than your opponents’.

- Be Confident, but DO NOT BE RUDE. Always treat your opponents with respect and courtesy in crossfire and rebuttal.

- Summary: I will start deciding my ballot during this speech, so extend important arguments that you want me to evaluate, explain the reasoning behind them, show their importance/relevance, and thoroughly develop them. Grab attention by confidently answering opposing refutations.

- Final Focus: Wrap up, weigh, and extend/emphasize key points and show me why ultimately that one ballot is for your team.

- Your framework, if you have a meaningful one, should be stated at the beginning of your first constructive speech. In your framework, tell me how I should evaluate certain impacts and why they should matter the most. In absence of a meaningful framework, I will evaluate on a cost-benefit analysis.

- Evidence – I will try not to look at evidence unless either side explicitly states that they want me to or if I have a serious doubt as to the legitimacy and truth of the evidence.

- Speaker Points - I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points if I feel that you are being disrespectful, insensitive, and uncourteous. I award points based on effective rhetoric and vocal emphasis to important points.

In the end, remember this: public forum debate is all about PERSUADING the public audience.

Good Luck!

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

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

Ulrich Palha Bergen County Debate Club

Yashwant Parmar BL Debate

nithya pathalam Lakeland

William Pramono Hire None

Jason Qian Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Siddhartha Rao Lakeland None

Amy Rhee Ivy Bridge Academy None

Ibby Salimi Edgemont HS

Samorian Samorian American Heritage

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:47 AM EDT

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

Serena Saunders Our Lady of Good Counsel High Sch

Vlad Savransky Bergen County Debate Club

Young-Mi Silverman Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Shyla Singh Edgemont HS

Patrick Smith Ivy Bridge Academy

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Rachel Su Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

David Thompson The Potomac School None

Tim Tutt Walt Whitman

James Ulry Medina Senior HS

Fujun Wang Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Bryan Weber BL Debate

Sean Wu Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Cindy Xu Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Fei Xu Potomac Debate Academy (PDA) None

Lucia Yang BL Debate None

Stanley Yang Edgemont HS

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

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

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

Basics:

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

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

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

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

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

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

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

o Something sounds super fishy

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

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

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

Chris Young Half Hollow Hills None

Rui Zhao Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Last changed on Tue January 7, 2020 at 3:52 AM EDT

Updated 1/7/2020:

In evaluating a debate round, there is the choice of evaluating strength of the arguments vs evaluating debate techniques. Of course one could argue that better techniques lead to stronger arguments, so they are pretty closely related. However, sometimes good techniques are deployed precisely to disguise a shaky argument. I vote based on strength of arguments as they transpire in the round.

I realize that given modern technology whatever case a team is running, pretty soon it is known to the entire circuit and every team starts running similar arguments. How do you judge when almost all teams on pro (or con) run similar arguments without being prejudiced towards one side? My focus is on how well a team responds and counter responds to opponent's arguments and counter arguments.

The following are some ways you can strengthen your case.

A) Logical link. Establish clear link(s) for your argument that opponent could not effectively overturn. Please note that merely saying there is a link between A and B or A implies B is not enough. It is up to you to establish and explain the strength of the link, based on logic, scientific theory, statistical inference or common sense. Offer clear logical explanation why opponent's links are weak.

B) Evidence. All pieces of evidence are not equal. It is up to you to explain why your evidence is strong and supportive of whatever you claim, and why your opponent' evidence is weak and non-supportive of whatever they claim. Evidence without clear explanation and context is not effective evidence.

C) Impact. You should weight impact whenever possible. I like numbers but will take them with a grain of salt, especially when you refer to large numbers of lives or huge sums of money, until you explain their plausibility. The better you explain how you arrive at the numbers and in general the better you explain the plausibility of your predicted impact, the more favorable your argument would look to me.

D) Abundant words and last words do not win the round by themselves. However, repetition does help me remember things so please feel free to repeat your key points (don't overdo it), especially in Summary and Final Focus.

More info from earlier version:

I have been judging Public Forum debate for a few years. I have a background in economics. Consider me a rigorous lay judge if that makes sense to you. Some general principles I vote on:

1. Soundness of your logic. If your logic is not clear, your evidence is likely not being used correctly.

2. Evidence. We are not talking about laws of nature. Social outcomes are rarely inevitable just because they seem logical, at least not along a predicted path. Good evidence makes their occurrences seem more likely or reasonable. Please cite your evidence clearly: who said what where and when. Explain how the evidence supports your argument.

3. Weighting impacts. To weight impacts, it often seems like you need to compare apples with oranges. It is your job to find criteria that help me compare apples with oranges. As an example, if you convince me we should only care about sweetness and nutrition of these fruits and oranges are both sweeter and more nutritious than apples, then I will accept that oranges are better than apples. Look hard for common characteristics of different impacts.

Style. It is hard for me to appreciate style if your logic is flawed or your evidence is misused. Having said that, doing somethings right will help you get more speaker points:

a. Be polite. Don’t shout. Don’t try to shut the other team down.

b. Keep your time and opponents’ time well.

c. Keep your cool and remain calm.

d. Humor can be a powerful argument…at the right moment.

Doing the opposite of a, b, c will reduce your speaker points.

Yingtao Zhu Potomac Debate Academy (PDA)

Login to Tabroom

Georgetown PF Congress and Online Speech Debate Tournament

2017 — Washington, DC/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges