1st Debate on the Daily Speech Debate Tournament
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
email@example.com please add me to email chains
from planet debate-
this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.
Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)
Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas
I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.
One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.
Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.
CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.
DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.
The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.
Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.
Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.
Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.
Hi! I'm Fiona, a pf debater at Cary.
If you have any questions you can message me on messenger (should just be Fiona Hu)
Add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tldr: run whatever you want
Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation to this rule will be auto 0L. I will also be reporting this violation to the tournament head
Tech > Truth
Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.
Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for these impacts.
If the round comes down to evidence clash, please tell me as a judge which piece of evidence I should care about/is more important in the round. THIS SITUATION IS NOT IDEAL, AND I WANT TO AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS.
If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.
I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.
Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.
PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.
If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.
If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.
Speaks depends on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (If you can name 3 unreleased Lana Del Rey songs and tell me your fav Lana Del Rey song I'll boost your speaks by +1).
That being said, for everytime you go "I will take x number of time" I will be docking a speaker point.
I don't pay attention in cross, but it's binding.
I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.
DON'T SEND YOUR KIDS INTO VARSITY LEVEL TOC QUALIFYING TOURNAMENTS IF THEY CAN'T HANDLE VARSITY LEVEL ARGUMENTS LIKE THEORY OR K'S.
I understand K's better than theory. I have a history of reading non-T Ks. I personally think that the current atmosphere for K debate is treating it like this sacred thing. It's not sacred lmao, just an argument. If you decide to go for a non-T K, I'll still vote for you if you win on the flow.
That being said, I have no sympathy if you hit prog and you cry and you're in varsity. Here's my take. Prog arguments need to be treated like arguments. People need to treat K debate and theory like arguments. K debate and Prog debate is just like substance debate, don't try to make it something else. THEY ARE ALL JUST ARGUMENTS. Do not take things personally - debate is just a game. At the end of the day, I will comfort you if you cry, and I will hug you if you cry. However, I will not be voting for you just because you cried. If you lose on the flow, you lose on the flow. Ks are arguments. Shells are arguments. Don't take it personally, just debate. (This part doesn't apply if your in MS, Novice and JV).
I have the same takes as Gabe Rusk on TW theory, go read on his paradigm if you want to know my take.
Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. That being said, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.
I don't get trixs, so run them at your own risk
My email: email@example.com, add me to any speech or card doc.
I have currently just graduated high school and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum debate and Congressional Debate, but also Big Questions and World Schools Debate for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District.
Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.
TLDR; I hate prog, treat me like a shitty lay judge even if I can evaluate your argumentation, don’t make me to extra work to figure out who won, pls have fun.
General PF Stuff:
Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as its not offensive or absolutely absurd(impacting out to 1 trillion humans)
Prog Debate:While everything I say below is true, I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame and don't do it to teams just looking for good experience in a tournament. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just to read prog.
Theory/T: I'm not the most experienced with it but I get the gist of it. Theory doesn't have to be answered in 2nd case if they are trying to keep the round trad. You must ask your opponents if they are okay with theory, just a general question as theory debaters won't yet know what potential abuse is made in the round, the only exception to run theory if opponents disagree is if a TW is necessary.
Kritik/K's: Fine, not my expertise but if you explain it to me like I was born yesterday, then it will be fine. Try to keep it in the realm of topical K's but do as you will.
Strike me if you don't like my policy about progressive args.
Speaker Points: I won't go below 28, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.
Don't read 30 speaks theory, please don't skew the round for this, you have a better chance of 30 speaks without this.
These all apply only to the speaker who did them:
- Make an avatar(both avatar franchises included) reference: +0.5
- Make a Stranger Things reference: +1
Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.
I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.
Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.
Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep
Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.
1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.
2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.
Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.
Weighing is always welcome here.
1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.
2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.
NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.
If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.
1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.
2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.
Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.
WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.
Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.
I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.
Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side.
As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).
Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.
First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.
Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.
Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.
Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.
Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.
Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.
Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.
Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.
Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.
DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP
CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.
Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.
Include me in your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
(work in progress)
Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.
Good luck and have fun!
I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.
Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.
Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.
I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.
Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.
Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.
Debated TFA policy circuit
1 bad - 5 good
K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour and a half nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (i only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless)
The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic.
I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good)
Tech ---x-------- Truth
Condo bad ----------x- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits --x--------- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ----x------- Any other fw
In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure i have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know whats analytics
Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, he taught me debate so go read his paradigm to find out more about me (good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)
If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit
Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy and I'm an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want(except tricks), but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.
Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.
To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.
Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.
Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.
I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible.
If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.
If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.
How I Evaluate
I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.
Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.
Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.
Read whatever shells you want to read if they made an in-round violation but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.
I’m neutral tab ras on most theory but threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous.
Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.
Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you need to contact me for any reason.
Debated PF for 4 years in HS.
Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely trash.
- Tech>Truth, but at a certain point the sketchier the argument the lower the threshold for response.
- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen, and they may shift my perception of the round, although I mainly think crossfires are to benefit the debaters, not the judge. (Also cross IS binding)
- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), the threshold for response will be quite low.
- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.
- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose. I will also not look at any cards other judge's call.
- Preferably use an author name and date but if you cite it in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Bonus points for citing it as a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)
- I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.
- If there is no response in rebuttal, offense is conceded.
- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline or defense is conceded.
- 1st summary has to frontline or defense is conceded.
- No new offense in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final.
- Arguments and responses that are not in summary do not count in final.
- A framework should be extended in every speech.
- Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to get my ballot.
- I likely will default to the neg if there is no offense left at the end of the round (depends on the resolution).
- I will adopt any speaker points policy for a tournament to make it fair.
- Actual weighing (not just saying "we outweigh on scope") is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing is even better.
- Remember that debate is not about just winning as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?
Good luck, have fun.
Hi! I look forward to judging your round. I am currently a high school debater, so I know how rounds work. Here are my preferences:
- I will buy whatever you say, as long as you have evidence or analysis to back it up.
- I dislike theory, but will not vote against it.
- I love crossfire, but I will not flow it. I prefer to listen to the clarifying, as well as strategic questions that you ask each other. They may affect who I think is winning the round, but they will not be flowed. If you make a good point in cross, be sure to carry it through to your other speeches.
- You do not need to dominate crossfire to prove to me you are a good debater. I appreciate when both teams can speak and have a calm, yet strategic crossfire.
- You can talk as fast as you want (I am also a fast speaker), but prefer you to speak slowly, so I can fully understand your arguments. You will impress me more if you clarify words and speak slower, rather than trying to spread. I will not read a speech doc, you should be able to speak clearly.
- I will not vote on a dropped contention, unless there is a turn on it. You must carry every point through final in order for me to vote on it.
- I will probably not look at called cards, as it is your job to do that and analyze them. If I am told to look at it, or if there is direct clash, then I will. Lying about a card or evidence will probably make you lose, but only if the other team points it out and uses it to their advantage, so be careful.
- I appreciate having an off-time road map, as it helps me flow better, but it will not impact my round decision.
- Please follow debate rules and do not bring up new offense in summaries or new evidence in finals.
- I love weighing, and it will help you a lot with my decision and your speaker points. Rather than just reading evidence and analysis, I want you to explain to me why I should vote for you.
Remember, have fun! I would much rather have a calm, fun round, then a crazy round full of screaming. :)