NORTH AMERICAN DEBATE CIRCUIT Opal Cup
2022 — NSDA Campus, US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Background : I have experience in debating and judging since school.
Advice for speakers:
I appreciate Off time road maps and good structure
Debating should be done in the politest manner. I am strict against Stereotypes, rude comments, Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone.
I appreciate good and valid evidence and clear statements from them.
General Contention Advise:
Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis.
Clear flagging of main argumentation is necessary.
Good rebuttals and good responses with comparatives are always good.
Try not to knife your partner.
Summary speeches should have great focus on clashes.
1. Analysis and comparative engagement would enhance marks.
2.Quality of speeches even if you win or lose
3. Bad and unsolicited behavior would tank your scores and even make you lose.
I have judged elementary and middle school debate last year. I make unbiased decision even if I have some background knowledge of topic and always open to listening and learning. I believe with time information changes and affects our decision. It's always fun to see how new and pro debaters benefit with the rounds.
I will give points based on what you presented , how well you presented, did you have real content or just tried to pass time with some nonintelligent tricks. I will not hold you responsible for what you did not cover about topic.
I am particular about debate rules:
- Manage time wisely
- Do not expect me to intervene during crossfire
- During cross fire do not try to waste opponent time by beating around the bush, ask precise clear questions
- Use signposting as your strength and also makes judges job easy
- I will take speaker points off if any arguments are conceded or if new arguments are brought up later than first summary.
- Come prepared, decide how you want to share the evidence. Do not assume other team may share evidence the same way (ex. google doc vs chat)
- I strive to start rounds timely and be respectful of everyone's time and effort.
- Low point wins are possible, but it has happened once only so far for me (so be confident but not rude).
I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush to put more in given time and not explain their case /argument properly or have unused time on hand. So pace yourself.
I am looking forward to honest, respectful debates from which both the debaters and I will learn debating and the topic. I am fairly easy going person but particular about respectful debates. I am getting familiar with debate jargons but not a master yet. I prefer to give immediate oral feedback as that may help debaters to improve for next round as well as may be looking at all feedbacks later may not give as much clarity and satisfaction. I do not mind debaters asking questions about my decision as long as it's done in respectful way.
I am learning and evolving with debaters. I debated a little during high school and college and love it now also. So let's keep the fun going. Enjoy the topic and debate process do not focus on winning and loosing. Every round you will learn and get better irrespective of outcome.
Public Forum paradigm
A few remarks:
- If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
- Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
- If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
- Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
- Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
- If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
- Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.
I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:
- You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
- Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
- You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.
What matters, in rough order of importance:
- Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
- The presence of weighing/narrative.
- Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
- Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
- Appealing rhetorical style.
- In-round courtesy and professionalism.
Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.
Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.
Clashes and Focus:
To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.
Equity and Timekeeping:
Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.
In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.
As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.
Evaluation and Feedback:
At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.
My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.
STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 07/23/23)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.
REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)
Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!
1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.
2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event.
2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.
2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.
3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!
- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.
- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)
- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.
- I identify as a Classical Liberal.
- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.
- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.
- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.
- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.
- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI
Hi my name is Zen (he/they pronouns).
A little about me, I'm a freshman in college and the a previous debate captain for FUHS/ARA and have two years of experience doing PF. Currently I'm learning LD but I have VERY basic knowledge of how it works so I'm sorry. I have an audio processing disorder so I will request cases to the email listed above to insure I have the correct information for the flow.
I do not tolerate any racist or homophobic arguments and teams who do so will be immediately dropped. The same thing applies if you read any triggering content without consent from me and your opponents. If you wouldn't say it to your mama, don't say it to me.
I am open to all other forms of debate but I have limited knowledge of theories and Ks. So if it's complicated to you, it's probably gonna fly over my head. And please for the love of whatever you believe in PLEASE SIGNPOST. I mean it. If I don't know where you're flowing I'm not gonna put much effort to look for it to be honest. It's your job, not mine. Also if you need me to cross out evidence or need me to cross apply for clash, again please signpost.
I will vote for the team that has the cleanest side of the flow, clashes the best and above all weighs! WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Debate isn't fun without it. Meta weighing is also ok or however deep you go is alright with me.
I do take off speaker points for not signposting
I allow a 10 second grace period but please don't take advantage to speed run another argument
Anything I forgot or you just need to ask any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts!
I am a parent judge (read Lay Judge :-)
My paradigm is
- Clear and Slow in both Speech and Debate, so that it is easy for me to understand
- Structured presentation, demonstrating clarity of thought, so that I can follow your contentions and speech
- Robust roadmap, so that I know what you are going to tell me
- Logical flow of thoughts that tie back to your thesis and roadmap ensuring I am not lost
- I am analytical and critical, so not easily swayed by tangential statistics and overload of references that don't support your contention. I am looking for examples that support your argument and thesis.
- I am a parent judge, so my feedback is geared completely at making you better.
- Most importantly, all contestants are typically so good, it is extremely difficult to pick the top 3-5 places, there are usually very minor nits that differentiate. A contestant ranked fifth is almost as good, if not the same, as contestant ranked first. While this is not fair to the contestants, the reality is that I am forced to pick 1st to 5th place and sometimes very minor nits force my hand. So please don't be discouraged.
Good luck. Remember, you are all amazing. I applaud you on choosing to spend your fun childhood years on rigorous and tough extra curricular activities, like Speech and Debate competitions, instead of random texting. You are all winners in my book, just for making this difficult choice.
Email for anything: email@example.com
World Schools Debate:
My favorite form of debate because in my opinion it is the most accessible. Style is 40% of points so keep in mind that presentation and delivery are very important in this event especially. This means no spreading! Speeches should utilize all three criteria (content, style, and strategy) in order to deliver the most convincing presentation of their case. I will evaluate holistically based on which team employs these criteria the best and therefore is most convincing. Use POIs strategically in order to poke holes in the opponents case and make them explain their reasoning/evidence/analysis, which you could use in rebuttals later. Make sure to clash with the opponent, clearly point out where their case is flawed, by the end of the round you should make it very clear why the world of the Prop is better than the Opp, or vice versa.
I really appreciate a performer who really embodies the character in order to get the messaging across. A memorized, meaningful intro is important. I'm not looking for constant yelling/crying, rather theatrics that are used to get the mood across. Stay in character, "popping" is important too, use timing, think meaningful pauses and switch up your tone/pacing when necessary. Remember it is a performance, so do what you can to clearly portray the author's/your message that you are sending with this piece. I also pay attention to and appreciate good cutting--think structure, plot, etc. The piece should be cut around a clear distinguishable climax, and structured in an order that makes sense to tell the story to the audience.
This is a challenging event (but so rewarding!) The important thing to me is not a flawless delivery (though that is very impressive), but a speech that is well structured with a clear, defensible answer to the question. Clever intro that ties into the rest of the speech (revisited again at the conclusion) are always appreciated! You should have 2-3 reasons to support your answer, each one with your own intelligent analysis andsources. The extemp walk is super useful too, (muscle memory) and a good way to demonstrate structure within your speech.
This was my favorite event in high school! The most important thing here is a good, interesting topic that you analyze thoroughly and with a unique perspective. The most important word in Info is implications. What are the implications of your topic? Don't just tell me about it, tell me why in detail why I should care and how it affects me. I LOVE an interactive, creative visual, it is important that you use it purposefully, not just cause. A visual should enhance your points and be used at the right moment so as to not distract from your speech. Delivery is important (be clear and loud), but do not be robotic! Show some personality and of course humor is always appreciated.
Oratory is a super cool and unique event. The point of an oratory is to make the audience think about your topic in a way they never have before. Your speech should leave the room with a new perspective on your topic that they may want to incorporate in their own lives. I.e. If your topic is about, say, coffee, I should be left educated and with a brand new perspective of thinking about coffee. Be persuasive! Show me that your unique thoughts on coffee are worth every second of your ten minutes. Be engaging, loud, clear, and persuasive in your delivery. Humor is always appreciated.
Be persuasive and clash with your opponent!
Hello, This is my second year as a judge. I value the quality of your case and the clarity of delivery more highly than the sheer number of contentions you may make, (ie use spreading sparringly.)
In a related field, I have 15 years of public speaking experience through Toastmasters. I am more than happy to give you feedback on the public speaking aspect of your round. Good luck!
I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.
I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.
I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.
I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!
Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.
Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS
Now attending Southern Methodist University
General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.
Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)
Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.
I may ask for evidence at the end of the round
During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully
Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.
Basically, I judge by the overall evaluation. I will weigh both style and arguments. I would like you to ask relevant and effective questions during the crossfire and don't waste time by repeating the same question. I weigh both evidence and analytics. I also would like to see you extend your arguments in either your rebuttal or summary speeches. I will flow the round so I can tell if you drop any arguments.
From my perspective, here is the key to winning a round of debate: smooth flow, confident and clear speech, and well-organized arguments supported by both evidence and analytics.
Hello debaters! My name is Mandy and I am a first year college student at UC Irvine. I was a former public forum debater in high school and I am excited to be judging for you all!
- Be respectful to each other.
- Preferred: When evidence is presented, please make sure to include your source/citations. Weigh the impact of your arguments.
- Theory Arguments: Not preferred... Debate the resolution!
- Speak CLEARLY. Speed is okay, but you must be understandable
Other than that, debate how you want, nothing in there is set in stone - I'll try and adapt to you.
If there's anything I can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before the round. If you are making an email chain for evidence, please add me: Mandyhuang2003@gmail.com
I am Christy Miner and I am a parent judge.
I will attempt to flow, please go slow while speaking so that I can write everything down! If you go too fast, I'll miss your information and can't use it for Winning Decision.
Do not run any progressive arguments; I don’t know how to judge these.
I can get hung up on jargon; if you use it, use it as a VERB and complete your remarks in a sentence so I don't have to guess. e.g. link, turn, weigh, etc.
For these online tournaments, if a debater drops off, everyone stop and pause time; we'll resume when they return.
You keep your Prep times, and I'll keep on my side for reference.
When the time for Crossfire is over, don't keep speaking.
Please be nice to your opponents in Crossfire.
If you have any questions, please ask me in round.
If you are making an email chain for evidence please add me: Christy.firstname.lastname@example.org
I am happy to be here and participate in your event; Good Luck!
As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.
Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!
I've been judging for three years and am a lay judge. In debate, I prefer arguments that are evidence and fact based over blanket statements or assumptions. I really enjoy a healthy competitive environment where everyone is respectful of all competitors.
Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.
As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.
I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.
I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"
On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."
I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.
These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at email@example.com
UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant
Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.
Experience: I have sat in and judged multiple debate rounds since graduating. I have also competed in Public Forum for 2 years prior to graduating High School.
Speaking:Speak as fast as you want but it might be better to speak coherently and clearly so both I and the opponents can understand the arguments.
1)If evidence/arguments clash, you need to explain why I should value your evidence over the opponents. Properly weigh/impact evidence out.
2) Remember to extend in final focus and not just summary. If arguments are not stated in final focus, I will not count them.
What must you do to win? :
In order for your arguments/side to win, you must properly extend and impact evidence. Follow these two rules and you will win my ballot. Good luck and remember to have fun!
I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm okay with spreading.
Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution.
Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution
Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.
Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.
Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.
I am a student at San Jose State University in CA and this is my first time judging debate. I have received training on how to be an effective judge and am looking forward to this tournament. With that being said- please make sure not to speak too fast as I hope to be able to follow along to entire duration of the debate. Thank you!
EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com
In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.
Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot
- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like
- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.
- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.
- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.
- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.
- Not a fan of tricks
- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
Please speak clearly and make sure Summary and final focus are consistent.
As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.
Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially trans-formative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.
1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.
2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.
3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.
4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.
Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.
Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.
Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.
If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me. For online virtual debates, I would like you to disclose your case to me before the round actually starts and add me to the email chains.