Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops Public Forum Tournament
2022 — Cambridge, MA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Former PF Debater.
Hi! I am a recent college graduate from UVA and I debated for four years at Bronx Science!
In a debate round, I value a mix of evidence and logical warranting. Evidence should supplement warrants and impacts, rather than substitute for the argumentation.
Rebuttals don't need to frontline their own arguments in first rebuttal. Second rebuttal please spend some time frontlining especially if one of their arguments were turned in a rebuttal.
While I was an experienced debater in HS, flowing was always my weakest point and I cannot flow super quickly so please don't talk super fast.
I'll call for cards that become a big deal at the end of the round. Feel free to ask me any more questions of anything I didn't cover.
Start your summary/final focus with "Reindeer soup" for a +1 speaker point for reading my paradigm:)
Worlds- One of the original members of the Class of 2014 (the first generation) of USA Debate. I have judged and taught worlds before so I am fairly experienced in the format. What I mainly look for is clarity and engagement. The clear explanations of arguments are key in any form of persuasive argumentation. As for engagement, I want to see debaters engage with all ideas and arg presented in a debate, not simply repeat their analysis in hopes that I magically forget about the opposing side.
PF- 3yr PF debater and 9-year instructor at HDCSW. I look for impact calculus. Tell me the impact of your arg and what it means in the real world. Then tell me why that matters more than your opponents. While that may sound simple many debaters think that simply saying " ours is more important" is a convincing weighing mechanism. I'm fine with speed but a warning: You should be gauging your clarity when speaking fast, if I don't understand you then it will be hard for me to flow. This is all up to your discernment.
TLDR (updated 11/4/22)
- Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
- Win the flow=win the round
- Presumption =neg
- Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
- K debate is even better
- Defense needs to be extended
- I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
- You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.
My debate experience:
Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep
3 Years of NFA-LD Debate
4 Years of Public Forum debate
It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.
- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.
- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.
- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.
- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.
- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.
- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts
- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.
- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.
- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.
- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.
-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style
-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.
- If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.
I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.
I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.
I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.
If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.
I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.
As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.
Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.
Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.
The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.
DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!
DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.
And finally progressive debate-I really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.
for pf camp:
- i did 2 years of pf and 2 years of ld
2nd rebuttal should frontline everything
im ok with any type of argument that's not racist, sexist, etc. (don't say racism is good) - but most pf debaters don't run k's, theory, etc. properly so if you can't please don't :)
im ok with speed but you should be clear. i will yell clear twice and then speaks will tank - if i cant catch anything, then that's self-inflicted.
email me if you have any questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years (Blake '21)
email chain (email@example.com) - please put what the tournament, round number, and name of both teams
cards >>>>> paraphrasing -- all args need to have warrants
When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with the full cite (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence. You need to produce a card if your opponents ask for it. I do not like long evidence exchanges - you should already have the card cut and ready to be sent.
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.
Weighing: The very best way to get my ballot is to weigh. There absolutely needs to be comparative analysis in round. The earlier weighing happens in the round the better. Weighing should always come earlier in the round than second final focus. If there is no weighing in the round or the weighing comes too late, you may not like the decision I make. Weighing gives you the best opportunity to influence the outcome of my ballot.
Arguments need a link, warrant, and impact.
In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.
I really do not have a lot of experience evaluating progressive argumentation. I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please explain the arguments fully and clearly. I will do my best to evaluate them. That being said, if you are reading a progressive arg you probably want to decrease the speed that you read and extend the arg.
Be accountable for timing your own speeches, crossfires, and prep time.
I can flow public forum speed.
don't read new ev that directly contradicts your links to get out of turns
Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!
UPDATED FOR THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS 22-23
- head coach at the university of chicago laboratory schools, director of programs at chicago debates (chicago's udl)
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record - on the NATO topic I have judged 4 K aff vs FW rounds, voting for the K aff 1/4 times.
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue
coaching at uclab for several years. i will probably have >50 rounds by the end of the season. i occasionally coach and judge local PF and camp (harvard). i am a former policy debater from maine east, (north shore, wayne tang gharana) with some college debating at iowa and i translated debates to med school. i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. this means i haven't spent my summers deeply reading into the topic aside camp files. it also means you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.
**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).
**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.
i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.
i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.
**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- coaching debate!
**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**
I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.
Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.
Evidence quality is very important.
I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.
Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.
Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.
I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.
I reward debaters who think outside the box.
I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”
Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.
While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.
The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.
I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.
Relax. Have fun.
I debated for three years on the national circuit for North Broward Prep in South Florida. I am now a student at UNC-Chapel Hill.
-Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
-PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND AND DON'T BE LATE
-I will probably give you a 30 if you disclose open-source on the wiki (tell me before the round starts) and send speech docs with cut cards before constructive speeches (case and rebuttal)
-No progressive arguments unless you are disclosed open-source on the wiki
Case: I do not care what substance arguments you read as long as they are not exclusionary. I will also evaluate disclosure and paraphrasing theory if your cases are disclosed open-source on the wiki (full text disclosure/ highlights is NOT the same thing). I am probably not the best judge to read K's and other progressive arguments (with the exception of standard theory shells) in front of, but if you send speech docs and explain your arguments throughly and accessibly I will try my best. I will be fine with any speed you choose to read your case at so long as you are sending speech docs with cut cards BEFORE your speech. I will NOT be happy if you decide to spread a paraphrased case and refuse to send speech docs. This doesn't mean that I require teams to send speech docs with cut cards before speeches--just make sure that if you plan on spreading/speaking at above 300 wpm, you do so. I am not a fan of "ghost"/"hidden" links in case and my threshold for responses to these arguments will be lower in rebuttal.
Rebuttal: Again, feel free to go as fast as you want/dump as many responses as you'd like as long as you are sending speech docs with cut cards before rebuttal. I will be extremely unhappy if you dump turns and blow up the one your opponent didn't respond to in the back half if you did not send an organized speech doc before your speech. My threshold for frontlines will be VERY low if this is your strategy. I require that all offense AND defense on the contention you are collapsing on be frontlined in second rebuttal and will consider responses you don't frontline dropped. Turns must be implicated and warranted well the first time they are read if you plan on going for them. Please do line-by-line and don't read huge prewritten OVs and DAs to time skew your opponents--I understand that this is becoming a more common strategy in PF but specific responses are always best.
Summary: PLEASE extend defense in first summary. Nothing is sticky. Extend all parts of the argument that you are going for (this includes uniqueness, link, and impact) with clear warrants. Weighing must start in summary at the latest. Be efficient--you should not need to spread in back half speeches if you are collapsing strategically.
Final Focus: I will not vote for any arguments that are not explicitly explained in the final focus speeches. I will not flow any new responses and will not evaluate new weighing that isn't a response to previous weighing. You must also FULLY extend your arguments in final focus to win it.
-Please read trigger warnings on arguments that warrant one and include an anonymous opt-out form for all judges and participants. While I am a strong proponent of trigger warnings, they are not at all required for non-graphic descriptions of common debate impacts. I will certainly not look favorably upon those who use trigger warning theory to avoid discussing important issues.
-I always default to util and will presume for the first speaking team if there is no offense left in the debate
-Do not misconstrue evidence. If your opponents call you out on an egregious ethics violation, I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Do not take more than 2 minutes to pull up evidence; I will start running your prep. You MUST have cut cards ready to show your opponents if they are called for. I will not accept a 300 page pdf as your evidence and will tank your speaks if this is the case.
-Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts if anything is confusing
-I will disclose my decision after every debate. Postround as much as you want and feel free to ask questions about my decision. I would be happy to give speech-by-speech feedback and offer tips for improvement as well.
-Have fun and be respectful; I will not tolerate rudeness or discrimination of any kind
I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.
I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.
I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.
- not your best judge for evaluating prog. Explain really well and implicate.
NSD: If it is before lunch, and you want me to flow, please bring me coffee. You have been warned. (Stolen from Claire Beamer)
- Not going to evaluate progressive arguments made against lambda/ kappa labs. Tbh don’t run theory or tricks at all in the camp tournament.
I debated PF for four years at Glen Rock High School.
Add me to email chains:email@example.com
Speed is fine, send a doc if you go over 250 wpm
Defense isn’t sticky (extend defense in summary even if its conceded)
Second rebuttal has to frontline the first rebuttal. Anything conceded in rebuttal is conceded. That means no new responses in second summary (except responses to new stuff in first summary)
Summary and FF should both have extensions and weighing. Please extend your arg that you collapsed on, not doing that is the easiest way to accidentally lose. Then, weigh. Anything from timeframe weighing, prereqs, link ins, etc are very useful
Debater math is not a good impact. If your card says "a 1% decrease in GDP leads to an extra 20 mill people in poverty", don't do the math so it fits your x% GDP decrease. Econ is def way more complicated than any of us know how to calculate. If you have debater math in your case and you don't want to change it, don't change it, but "that's debater math" is acceptable impact defense
If I have to presume I’ll flip a coin unless told otherwise
pls send cards in an email chain or doc when your opponents call for ev. sending links in the chat is bad
bad evidence ethics can be made into a voting issue and will at least guarantee rly bad speaks
I will disclose who wins and if you want, I'll tell you your speaks
progressive args are fine as long as I can understand them
Feel free to post-round me I won't change my decision but we're all debaters let's debate abt the debate why not
If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to email me!
LD Debate is values debate.
Framing issues are often more important for my decision than minor drops. This does not mean I do not appreciate good technical debates- I think this is a very important part of any debate- but it is the debaters’ responsibility to provide me with a lens for how to evaluate technical details.
LD is still values debate
TLDR: Do whatever you do best, don't be afraid to try new things, and have fun. SPEAK CLEARLY no matter how quickly. Tell me what to write down. I need to know how your alternative works--how it works in the material world. I like the game of debate and value the ethos of good and fair debating. I like to reward topic research. Be a good person.
Who are you, Matt Stannard?
High school and college policy debater for 7-ish years. I was a full-time debate coach, assistant director and director for 16 years. I then went to law school and graduated with my Juris Doctorate and spent a few years as a full-time organizing consultant. Then, back to debate: I'm currently a coach, summer institute instructor, and frequent judge.
What are some important things to keep in mind about how you view debate?
Policy, critical, and procedural debate are of roughly equal value. I am not the state. Life is good, the topic is good, topic research is good. Debate should be challenging but fair. I won't vote for classist, racist, heteropatriarchal or sexist, ageist, ableist, or colonialist arguments. Those are ethical limits, but I will and often do vote for arguments I simply intellectually disagree with.
I don’t like to read a huge amount of evidence after debates, so the more you tell me during the debate, the less chance I’ll reconstruct arguments afterward in ways you might neither predict nor agree with.
What style and rates of delivery should we aim for?
Debate in the style and at the speed you're comfortable with. Please speak VERY CLEARLY and enunciate more than you would during a normal conversation. Please watch me occasionally to see if I'm getting it all down. I may sometimes ask for clarity.
What theoretical defaults should we be aware of?
I live and work at the intersection of grassroots social movements and policymaking. I really like solvency arguments for/against the kritik alternative that resemble solvency arguments for/against plans or counterplans--that engage with the material world where change is being claimed. Who, what, how, where etc. I am familiar with how movements and advocacy groups work so tell me how the alt works (or doesn't).
T and other procedurals aren't per se "genocide," but the political and social implications of particular interpretations may be reasons to prefer or reject those interpretations.
I won't kick a counterplan for you to test the status quo: if you don't want to be committed to it in the 2NR, explicitly kick it.
Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy. Neg, it should be clear how your advocacy is a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy.
I will selectively flow CX to help me understand teams' argumentative commitments, definitions, distinctions, and what will be dispositive in the decision.
What preferences about in-round technology should we be aware of?
Prep time ends once the email is sent.
All tech should be set up pre-round; remediation of tech comes out of your prep.
File transfer time is grace time, but don't steal prep or I'll steal your speaker points.
What ethical views of debate should we be aware of?
Be chill to each other outside of speeches.
Please ask pre-round or via email if you have any specific questions that aren't addressed above.
*****IF MY CAMERA IS NOT ON I AM NOT THERE******
I have a philosophy degree from Loyola and last debated for GSU (2n). I have a background in coaching, judging, and debating LD, PF, and Policy and I have been working at camps for 6 years (GDS, UNT, Hdc, and Snfi). Currently coaching for CKM. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed- that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. I will listen to pretty much any arg pending heinous claims. However, I typically only like to vote on theory arguments in which the violation can actually be resolved by the ballot. Can go either way on tricks, but I don't hate creative attempts at securing the ballot. Please for the love of everything... do not run a tva arg in front of me because we are both gonna be upset. My threshold for granting the tva is incredibly high and this is probably the only argument I really dont love hearing. It is unlikely I will vote on T. Definitely K leaning in terms of what I am most familiar with.
tldr; pref me as a k judge
My connection is not the best- please include your analytics in your speech doc and make my life a lot easier. Reduce your speed by 10-15%.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated -Nov. 2021
Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS
I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity). My coaching style is focused on narrative building. As a debater I mainly relied on clean line by line extensions and sought out ways to sever my opponents' links. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. Big Picture, traditional impact calculus is preferred, but I am open to more progressive approaches to debate. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.5. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. More in depth explanations provided below.
Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant.
I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. "Framework" in PF is not necessary and I think it takes away time that can make arguments more substantive. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links. It's lazy, for example, to run a Cap K shell, and then assume I will extend the offense just because I am familiar with the argument. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. Too many rounds would an team ask for a card, and it ends up not being paramount in the round. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.
I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.
I'm used to high speeds in LD rounds, I'm usually annoyed when you stumble or don't articulate while spreading. I think if you choose to spread, then you should be good at it, so I will not say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand you. I will just not flow your arguments. You are welcome to send me speech docs (email@example.com) but I won't fill in gaps in my flows after the fact. This is unfair for debaters who are able to convey themselves clearly on the flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing. I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because there is not enough substance in theory debates. If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I am likely to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are have very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.
I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions. I don't like to vote on Topicality because its usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.
I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.
I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.
- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.
- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.
- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.
- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.