Aberdeen Novice Online 2
2022 — Online, SD/US
Novice Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello, I did debate in high school all 4 years, with the first two being in policy and the final two in Public Forum. Thus, I know what is going on, but I won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic for the first couple of tournaments, so ease me in.
Speed/Signposting: I did policy for two years so I can handle some speed, but if you aren't signposting and telling me where I need to flow what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to flow it. With that, please signpost. Tell me where you are putting this argument on the flow. I can flow everything you are saying, but only if I know what you are saying, and where I'm supposed to put it.
Weighing: At the end of the round, tell me why you win. You could have the best defense in the world, but if you don't give me any offense to vote on, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.
Truth v Tech: I am a big mix of both. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I'm not going to vote for them in that area, however, if I am left with two impacts, whichever impact is more probable is the one I'm most likely going to vote on.
Framework: The only way I'm going to follow a framework is if you pull it through the entire round, if you don't pull the framework through, I'm going to default to a cost-benefit analysis.
Personal Preferences: One thing that I am picky about is pulling through evidence. Don't just tell me to pull through the impact or pull through the link, tell me specifically what I'm pulling through. Tell me the impact I'm pulling through, and tell me the link I'm pulling through. Just because your opponents drop your contention, doesn't mean you don't have to do any work on that anymore. You still have to tell me why you win with that point. Another controversial take that I have is that the second rebuttal needs to get back to its own case. To me, you can't not touch your own case from the 2nd Constructive to the 2nd Summary.
Evidence: Some things to me are unspoken, so you don't necessarily need a card for everything. I am all for analytical arguments, but there is a line where you need evidence for something you are saying. I will also call for evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. I will not call for it if it isn't called out by your opponents, but if there is a dispute, I view it as my place to settle the evidence debate.
Topic Specific Things: On this topic of Great Power Competition, please talk about how the U.S.'s Great Power Competition causes either your benefits or harms, if you emphasize that, you have a good chance of winning the round. Also, I don't want to have to vote on climate change or nuclear war, but if I have to I will.
At the end of the day, please be respectful to your opponents, don't make me not want to vote for you because you are being disrespectful. Good Luck!
wassup. my names aadil ali, i’m a second year (sophomore) public forum debater for harrisburg high school, as well as an orator. I’m a pretty extroverted person so if you say something off track, you definitely will see my reaction and know that. At the end of each round, i will give some feedback and critiques on the round, if, of course, you want me to.
Some rules i have:
1. Let’s have fun. that’s all i want. this is a learning experience for us all so just enjoy it
2. I want everyone to have confidence in themselves, and to know that the only way to get better, is to try your hardest no matter the circumstance. never give up, because a round can be won at many different times.
3. DO NOT say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other such things. I will not tolerate it all and will lose you the round
Actual debate-y stuff I like for PF:
- i want clear and loud case reading. i don’t care how fast, just please be legible otherwise you are going to lose
- tell me where you are at on the flow. otherwise imma be lost and i won’t even know what you are arguing anymore. clearly tell me in this format (onto their contention 1 sub point a where they argue _____ )
- rebuttal: if you are the first speaking team, please only attack your opponents case. if you are the second speaker team, please use about 3 ish minutes on your opponents side first, and then use the rest to respond to a few arguments the opponents made against your case.
- summary: literally the most important speech. this makes or breaks your round if i’m being honest. clear and concise. boil it down to the main points, what is dropped and what isn’t, and use voters (main things that are the reason why you win. can really be anything)
- final focus: really just explain to me why you won. rounds are usually won at summary, but if you tell me something really good in final focus, you might win. don’t repeat the voters back to me. i already heard them. no new evidence though
- cross fire: this is my pet peeve. ask relevant questions please. and don’t keep pushing something that they already answered. DO NOT BE RUDE. OMG IF YOU ARE IT MAKES ME MAD PLEASE PLEASE DONT.
- use off the clock road maps for all speeches except the constructive
Im not the most familiar with this. I do know structure and stuff kinda of it. You will have to help me with timings and what speech is what. Things I look for in this are similar to PF, so just read above whatever you need.
I hope you guys get in the habit of reading paradigm. if you do read this, mention SpongeBob square pants to me before or after the round and i will give .5 speaker points. whoever does it first gets the extra points
I’m a pretty laid back judge, If you do good you get good things, if you make one or two minor mistakes it’s cool. Just don’t mess up during the entire tournament or you may be docked points. I usually tend to hyperfocus on impacts and what arguments stick. I also completely disregard useless conversation, if you argued for two minutes over sources with no actual thought process put into it, it didn't happen in my mind. Please don’t waste time on sources though. If you don’t already know the source and have means to refute its validity you haven’t prepared for it and in turn I don’t think that you inherently deserve points for finding flaw in it only after questioning the sources origins. BAZINGA!
be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops
I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)
I am going to be a flow over anything judge.
If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.
I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!
I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.
For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.
Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.
I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)
You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)
(put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)
Hello! Welcome to my paradigm if you just so happened to click on the link. - if this is too long, make sure to read the general section. :))))
About me: Olivia She/her (19)
I am an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I currently am a sophomore at the University of South Dakota and living in Sioux Falls! I am majoring in psychology with a minor in Organizational Communication and earning a certificate in both marketing and leadership.
My debate career:
I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy my freshman and sophomore years, and public forum my senior year, oratory 2 years, and inform all 4 years. I was state runner-up in the policy debate in 2020, inform state runner-up in 2021, and inform state third place in 2022. I have competed in three national competitions. I qualified in policy my sophomore year, and inform my junior and senior. As a senior, I advanced to the top 60 in expository speaking, and as a junior top 120.
Public Forum -
I am okay with speed, I understand the lingo. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it as an argument. I consider myself good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.
Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all of the way through, if you drop something, tell me and why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.
Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. I debated policy the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)
I have only judged LD, last year being my introduction. But, don't think I am lay, I do know what you are saying, and I can keep a good flow. (Thank you to all of my friends who have helped me out lol) With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.
If you are checking my paradigm before an IE round, I am so sorry that you think that you should be judged based on someone's preferences on content. Be confident, and I really hope that you love what you are telling me. I think IEs are unique and cannot be based on my personal preferences and biases. You will do great, I promise!! <3
GENERAL: Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!
PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feels flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.
I do not do time signals, do not ask.
I prefer if you have time on your own, but once my timer goes off, your time is done, please do not argue with me about how much prep you have.
During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do
I WILL get the ick for any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment and I will not stand for any of it. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening, and will contact your coach.
Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.
Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.
Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.
I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.
Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.
In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.
On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.
Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.
Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.
Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win.
World School: New to event, but have had students compete on college level and help guide. Currently coaching our team and have done research on the international level about the event.
hihi i’m good with speed i’m probably like a 7/9 i did pf and ld 2 years each so i’m kinda familiar with formats
BUT i have terrible organization for rounds and i focus super hard on rebuttal. if you smoke someone in rebuttal you basically win unless u really clearly summarize points at end of round i am super lazy. mostly i prefer line by line but i’m ok with voters.
i’m more familiar with traditional debate so please explain kritiks, counterplan, theory args (i get the gist of them but please clarify)
tech > truth because i think truth judges kinda do the work for debaters sorry, but if your opponent says something blatantly wrong just give me 2 words on it like "this is untrue call for card" i will call for card and flow that through.
i said i’m good with speed BUT only do speed if u need to (not the drug lol). what i mean is dont talk fast for the sake of talking fast like “ooh i’m so good at reading args quickly oooh” like i don’t care about that, i want u to show me that you know the argument you’re running not just reading off cards. if you use speed to just try to disorient your opponent i think that’s smelly.
Sioux Falls Jefferson LD and IE Coach
"Sauce Boss" - CH
Debate Rounds Judged: A lot
Speech Rounds Judged: 20-30
Aberdeen Central ‘21
Tabula Rasa Judge overall
I like to disclose, if you have an issue with that let me know.I think the games that tournaments try to play of not allowing it is annoying and not cool.
I lean left. Do with that info what you will
Be funny, tell jokes, use analogies, make me laugh and you will automatically get a bump in speaks. Debate is supposed to be fun, make it that way. Items that make me laugh include - Lakers, Warriors, Astros, Vikings, 49ers, Saints, and Ronaldo Slander, mentioning the rapper Future, or by dunking on politicians
New in the 2 = Dumb. Do not make new args in non constructive speeches. I am a 8.5-9 on Speed as well. I have a very high threshold when it comes to the argument of In Round Abuse happening, to me it is an all or nothing argument, not a time suck. I have a high bar when it comes to me voting on RVIs, Condo/Dispo. If you bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them. Running Disclosuse Theory with me as a judge = 0 Speaks, A Loss, and me being annoyed for however long the debate is. Stop being a baby and debate, you do not need all of your coaches to do the work for you and prep out a case.
Word usage to avoid with me as your judge -
Racial Slurs, Excessive swearing (a well placed curse is okay once and while), “queen” and “king”, slay, poggers, he/she “ate it up”. All of these are cringe and will result in speaker points being docked. (For context someone said poggers, slay, and ate it up in a round so I felt necessary to add this)
How I give Speaker Points
I think speaker points are possibly the worst thing about debate since there is not a universal system on what makes a "good speaker". You should not get 25 speaks because you talk fast to a lay judge or get 30 because you spread to a circuit judge. So here is how I give out my speaks and what each means.
23 and Below- Did something in the round that was out of pocket and probably not ethical (IE: -isms, ists)
24-26 - Below Average speaker, you get up in the round and make some arguments but not ones that sound good. Needs serious improvement in more than one area
27 - Average. This is what each speaker starts out in the round for me, you go into the round with 27 speaker points by default
28-29 - Above Average to Elite Speaker - you make some great arguments and have a great flow along with signposting, doing good line by line, and being clear while also formulaic when you speak
30 - The Best Speaker I have seen all year - I do not think I have given out one 30 in all of my judging maybe ever, so this is a high bar. You will need to be perfect to get this. You need to not stumble once, be razor efficient with words and just dice your opponent up.
Ways to get more Speaks in .1s in the Round
Being Funny, Smart, and being a bit sassy in CX is ways to get you some points with me
Making an argument I was thinking of and then saying, shows a high level of talent.
Ways to lose Speaks with me as the Judge.
Running Disclosure Theory, Speed Ks, or just paraphrasing things in general.
Being a meanie head
I think that IEs should be based how well you can give me whatever information you have. Oratory, Inform, Interp etc are not my thing even though I have competed in all of those events. If you have me in non extemp, just talk good, and if you have me in Extemp, just know I could really care less about how good you talk and if you give me fluff, I will be to tell if you are actually saying really anything substantive. Content and analysis is way to get the one with me in the back.
I want offense offense offense, that's how you win with me as a judge in the back, I want to see offense or you will not get my ballot. Do good weighing, Warrant analysis, and clobber your opponent into the ground, and you will get my ballot at the end of the round. While I do not coach PuFo directly, I will most likely have some what of an understanding of the topic but go easy on lingo based in the topic unless I state otherwise. I do not like paraphrased when I am your judge, I think it allows bad debaters to get an advantage. I will not vote you down simply for the fact that you have a case like that but I will be very inclined to listen to Paraphrase theory and that you should vote down the other team for it. But once again, you will have to read that theory argument for me to vote the other team down on it. I think public forum debate can be very lizard brained in the fact that everyone runs the same argument and it gets very boring. I will love to see you run arguments that have sick warrents and great links, I will be much more likely to vote on that compared to a not well thought out case. I am a 8 for speed and prefer tech debate to anything.I default to a CBA FW unless told otherwise. Counter Plan Cases are okay and so are K style of cases. Generally speaking your 2AR/NR should just be voters and why you win the round by framing in the context of the debate (IE: Impact Calc, Solvency)
Do not ask if you can have first question, if you spoke first just start CX. Do not say, "off the clock roadmap", just give me an order. Just say, "Everyone Ready" instead of asking each person in the round, asking everyone wastes my time and yours.
I know a lot about Traditional LD, and Circuit LD is what I know best, and philosophy as a whole. This is what I coach for Sioux Falls Jefferson High School so there is a good chance I am well informed on what the current topic is. That being said I have a Policy Esque approach to LD, I help cut arguments and write cases as such. I debated policy for as long as it was around in South Dakota and was something that I still think can help make other debates better! If you want to CPs, DAs, Ks, I am your judge, I will be able to buy any scenario you give me as long as you can explain it. The best way to win my ballot as a judge is to put offense on the flow and give me good voters, and just writing my ballot for me. Framework is just kinda there and if it is a round that is heavy on it, obv I will listen and be able to vote based off this but throwing a hail mary in the 2AR/2NR about how you win the round because of FW is not for me and will not gain you any ground. I'll be able to keep up with pretty much everything, I lean HEAVILY more toward tech as stated above but Framework debate is not for me, I will be looking more on the basis of the contention level. Good impact calc + solvency offense & defense = my ballot
I am a 8 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast. I will vote not anything that is - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks(aka Speed Bad etc), Meme arguments, and Actor CPs. I flow CX and think it is important for argument developing and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense.
Notions I carry with me into the round -
Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.
Death is (probably) bad
Refer to LD and Pufo for framework and weighing arguments. Be the better debater and I will vote for you. I have minimal experience and do not care about this event nearly as much as I do the others.
TL:DR - Tech>Truth. I will vote on Paraphrase theory. Offense wins my ballot. Please signpost and do proper line by line. Disclosure Theory, or Bad Ks = dumb. There is no 3NR/AR
I am a lay judge who will look to weigh the evidence in voting issues at the end of the round. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently.
I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.
Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. And please don't use off-the-clock roadmaps. 'Fancy' frameworks won't gain you any points, nor will off-the-wall cases.
Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.
I am a first/second year LD judge. I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, clarity of thought, and organization.
I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.
I more than welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot for that.
I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or you have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting.
When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy looking face. Don’t think I am in disagreement with what you are saying because of this.
In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you are able to actually defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. If time allows and you are able to do so, I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.
For the final focus, you should select two or three main voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of the speech should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that works better for you.
Roadmaps are off the clock for me
If you ask me to call for evidence for it to be evaluated, I will.
Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. I believe evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate, try to be as upfront as possible.
I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.
Policy-I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policy maker.
LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.
I'm a student who will be attending Middlebury College while majoring in Political Science and Environmental Science with a minor in Chinese. During my high school debate career, I placed top 4 at nationals in Lincoln Douglas, and I'm a two time Lincoln Douglas state champion. I also attained state champion for United States Extemporaneous Speaking, and I competed for two years in Public Forum.
email (for chains only): email@example.com
I don't like disclosing, so please don't ask.
General debate preferences:
Tech > truth, I focus on the arguments made in the round. I won't make the arguments for you. However, if you outline that something your opponent says is blatantly false, I will flow that through.
I'm okay with speed, but don't do it just to try to flow your opponent(s) out. I can understand fast speech (probably 8/10), but I think that if you are speaking fast, you have to be making good, purposeful arguments. I'm personally not a huge fan of it, but if you do spread, you should have clear articulation to avoid me getting lost in the flow/what you are arguing. You shouldn’t speak really fast just to speak fast. I'll always be okay with some level of spreading if a situation requires for it since that's understandable (ie: have to respond to a lot of things).
I think this goes without saying but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Hate does not have a place in debate.
While I am not necessarily a flow judge, I still think flowing is important. If your opponent drops something, point it out and blow it up. A response that hasn't been interacted with can create an easy path to the ballot.
I want warrants for cards; don't just tell me to extend your evidence. A warranted card will always mean more than telling me to prefer your article because the person who wrote attended a prestigious school. If you ever say "I don't know know, that's what the study/card says", it's probably a bad sign. Also, I don't flow card names, I often miss them in constructive because I focus more on what you're arguing than what the source is. Thus, saying "extend Washington '22" doesn't really mean anything to me. You have to do more work than that.
Weighing and voters are never a bad thing, don't be afraid to use them.
I will read cards if you ask for me to call for them. Otherwise, I probably won't unless it is very important in the round. If you know that your opponent is misusing evidence and tell me to call for that card, I will. If I find that someone is blatantly abusing evidence, depending on the severeness, I will consider voting them down just for that.
In my opinion, debate should always be a productive space where competitors can learn and grow and thus treat their opponent with respect. If you violate this and are explicitly rude, I will be very hesitant to vote for you based on that principal. Even if you are going against someone who is competing in varsity for the first time, you should treat them with kindness and respect.
I DO NOT WEIGH NEW ARGUMENTS MADE LATE IN THE ROUND. Of course, extending arguments or explaining why your original argument/response still stands is fine. I think that new arguments made past this are inherently abusive because 1. the function of those latter speeches is not to continue to make new arguments 2. it's unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond efficiently/effectively that late.
If you include a reference to K-pop in any of your speeches, I will give you +0.1 speaker points :)
I have specific comments on the types of debate I am most familiar with below, if your type of debate is not listed, please refer to general preferences above. My specific preferences ONLY apply to those types of debate.
I'm fine with K's and most other miscellaneous policy arguments as long as you can explain them and why they are preferrable to vote for in round. Don't run a Cap K and say to vote for it just because capitalism is bad. HOWEVER, I normally don't like counterplans. This is just a personal judging preference; I think it can be an unfair burden for the affirmative to have to attack a bunch of alternatives that the neg can come up with because it heavily skews the debate towards the negative (since there are tons of other things that could potentially resolve a problem). I also find that they are often provided without warrants, just offhandedly mentioned and then used as a winning issue. While it not abusive in all cases, I think that it often can be. Just because one alternative might be good doesn't deny that the resolution could also be beneficial to pursue; if you want to use a CP, you have to warrant why it is preferrable, not just why it can also resolve the issue. I am okay with a different option being used to show that it has higher effectiveness than the stance the aff takes as long as it is warranted. If you are just listing off a bunch of alts, that's probably a bad sign. The safest way to play this if I'm in your round is have the alt/CP as defense against the affirmative arguing that neg has no ground, not as direct claim to catch the affirmative off-guard with a random list of alternatives. But since it is a nuanced topic, depending on the way it's run/attacked, I might be fine with it even if you don't run it in the way I prefer. STILL, I WILL NOT VOTE YOU DOWN JUST FOR HAVING A CP. BUT if your opponent argues in the round why the CP is abusive to the burden of the affirmative (having to argue against too many random solutions, not focus of topic, etc), I am pretty likely to buy that.
I'm a strong believer that solvency doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in Lincoln Douglas debate since it is based on morality. HOWEVER, if you are running an argument that relies on solvency (ie: the affirmative is moral because minimizing environmental harms reduces oppression), it is not something you can get around. In my opinion, some degree of solvency towards (in this example) reducing environmental harms has to be guaranteed, otherwise it doesn't make sense to vote for the affirmative without access to impacts. As long as your case doesn't revolve around solvency, you do not need to show that everything is solved for me to vote for you.
I'm also a strong believer that the job of the negative is to disprove the affirmative, not outline a counterplan or solve for the issues that affirmative outlines. How each negative debater can go about disproving the affirmative is up to the interpretations provided in the round, but the default for the negative is not to advocate for the opposite of the affirmative or solve for the aff's issues.
I will never vote someone down because they use a philosopher that committed some irrelevant harmful action/ideas. I believe that philosophy can be separated from the philosopher because, after all, philosophy is based on random bodies of thoughts on human action, not just one person. Even if Locke said or did something harmful, that doesn't change what his moral theory said or change that it has been beneficial, creating a whole body of philosophy still used in modern day. (But general criticisms are fine, just not ones saying that a philosopher said something sexist)
I absolutely LOVE value/criterion turns. If you can find a way to turn your opponent's framework, that is a wonderful way to outline your path to the ballot.
Value criterion debate is huge part of what makes Lincoln Douglas special compared to other types of debate. Please don't forget about it in the round; I am a huge fan of a well-functioning framework.
WAY more than Lincoln Douglas, warranting is incredibly important for me in Public Forum. Especially if both sides have evidence which disagrees with each other, I want you to provide analysis not only on why your evidence stands more but also on why your opponent's falls. I will not do the work for you. Weighing is also incredibly important since Public Forum defaults on a cost benefit analysis framework. Thus, if one side can show me more benefits/harms it becomes far easier to vote for them.
Avoid hyper-specific topic jargon if I am in the back of your round. Although I competed in two years of Public Forum, I spent the bulk of my time involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate. While I will most likely be familiar with the basics of the topic, I will not know all of the lingo.
I outline most of the rest of my preferences in my general debate preferences, so refer back to those.
If you have questions about a specific preferences, feel free to ask me at any point.
TL:DR - Don't be abusive with evidence or make new arguments late in round. Be respectful. Use weighing/voters and warrant your evidence. Ask me to call for cards you think are abusive/need to be read. I am not a fan of using speed to outflow your opponent.