Philhistorian Middle School and High School Championship
2023 — NSDA Campus, US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi! My name is Aarnav (he/him). You don't need to call me "judge", just Aarnav is fine. I am a freshman and debate for Monta Vista High School in California. I've done trad LD for three years and this is my first year of circuit LD. I've only done LD, so this is the event I am most comfortable judging. If I'm judging any other event, I'll make sure to read up on the rules and figure out what the topic is before the round so I won't be completely clueless. I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com. I don't really care whether you use email chain, file share, or speechdrop. If there's anything my paradigm doesn't address, please feel free to ask me before the round.
I did trad debate for three years, so I have decent experience with the style. If the round is a trad debate, read whatever you want and debate however you want. I will evaluate every argument from a technical lens. Make sure your arguments have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Extend your arguments throughout the flow, and please don't go for every single argument. Choose one (maybe two) contentions to collapse to in the 2NR/2AR and explain why this matters the most in the round. For framework, make sure you have a clear value and value criterion. If you have similar (but differing values) like Morality and Justice, please don't spend a lot of time arguing about which one is better because they're both very similar. It's a waste of your rebuttal time that you can allocate elsewhere. At the end of the round, I'll evaluate the debate based on whichever side has the greatest overall impact under the winning value criterion. If there isn't a clear winner and/or extension of the framework debate, I'll evaluate the round using util (cost-benefit analysis). Off-time roadmaps are fine. I will be keeping time, but I would appreciate it if you also keep your own time. I probably won't say much in round, and before you start your speech, please confirm that I'm ready (I should be ready but it's good to confirm). I also don't care if you send cases or not.
Circuit LD Paradigm:
I am open to listening to any and all arguments made (provided they aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.). I think the point of debate is to let debaters make whatever arguments they want instead of adapting to the judge and reading arguments based on the judge's preferences. The following shortcut is my personal comfort in evaluating different types of arguments, NOT my argument preferences. I will listen to any and all arguments you make. I do not "hack" for any type of position.
Quick prefs shortcut:
1 - LARP/Policy
2 - T
2 - Theory (real theory with actual abuse)
2-3 - Simple Kritiks (Cap, SetCol, etc.)
3 - Phil
4 - Complex Ks
4- K affs
5 - Tricks
5 - Friv theory (shoes theory, mask theory, etc).
For online debates: It's helpful if you record your speeches online. In case of audio/tech issues, it's good to have a recording of your speech for fairness purposes.
Tech > Truth. If something is dropped then it's true. However, you need to extend the argument and explain its implication. I will not do the work for you and if there isn't an adequate extension of the argument, I might not buy it.
I'm fine with speed. If you're going to spread, please send a doc. I do not flow off the doc but find it helpful so I can follow along. I'll say clear three times. After that, I'll stop flowing and your speaks will probably drop. You should probably start off slower and build your speed up in the first 15ish seconds. I wouldn't say I'm bad at flowing, but I'm definitely not the best, so you should probably slow down a little on taglines and author names. It's also helpful if you put an "and" or "next" or something like that to signify that you are done with the current card and are on the next card.
LARP: Go for it. These arguments are the ones I'm most comfortable evaluating.
Counterplans: Counterplans are cool. PICs are fine. Consult CPs are iffy and probably need a lot more work done to explain how they're competitive. I err on the side of functional competition over textual competition. If your counterplan only competes textually it will require a lot of explanation about how it's competitive.
Kritiks: I'm fine with these. I am not super well-versed with deep K lit, and only understand simple Ks like queerpess, cap, setcol, etc. If you're going to run something like Baudrillard, don't assume I have knowledge of what you're talking about because I probably don't. You'll need to explain the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik well if you want me to vote off of it.
Tricks: PLEASE DON'T SPAM A BUNCH OF BLIPPY ANALYTICS AND EXPECT ME TO CATCH THEM ALL. If this is your strategy, you definitely want to slow down to make sure I catch them all. Even if your opponent drops one and you extend it, there's a chance I might not have caught it in the first place. I only evaluate what's on my flow, not what is on the doc, which means you want to ensure I catch all of your tricks.
Theory: Theory is fine. I think theory shells of actual abuse are much better than friv theory, but I'll still evaluate it. Disclosure theory is fine, but if your opponent is a novice/lay debater, please don't. I'll vote off of it, but your speaks might go down.
Evidence Ethics: Please don't clip. If I catch this happening, it will be an auto-L. I'd prefer that any other evidence ethics challenges are read as theory, unless it's something completely egregious. In that case, I'll default to tournament rules first, then NSDA rules.
Misc: If your opponent is a lay debater, you can still spread, but make sure they're fine with it and maybe don't go 100% of your speed. You don't have to accommodate an insane amount, but please make sure the round is still accessible for everyone.
- Speech times
- No racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments. This will be an auto-L + the lowest speaks possible
Speaker points: Speaks start at 28.5 and go up and down based on how well you speak, argument choice, argument execution, 2NR/2AR collapse, etc.
GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!
Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present
Cleared at the Toc.
Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.
Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: I think the neg should win why fairness outweighs whatever disad the aff has - The aff needs to a counter interp that defends a type of model of debate and what the role of the neg is.
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.
Slow down and tell me how to evaluate the debate, and debate the debate you want to have not what you think I want to hear.
- parent judge
- present your arguments well, deliver clearly and slowly
- clarity of thought
- use common terms, I do not know debate jargon
- good pace and pausing
- happy debating!!
- talk slow enough to hear clearly
- no shouting, raising voice as that won't really strengthen your case.
- don't interrupt others
- 15-20 second grace period
- parent judge
I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.
Wish you all the BEST !!
I am a parent judge new to debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please only assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.
LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)
LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)
Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)
Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)
-Put me (firstname.lastname@example.org) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)
-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool
-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.
-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space
-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.
-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.
-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be
-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool
-Write prep down on Zoom chat
-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview
-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded
-Quote I stole from Gomez:
I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.
-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something
-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”
-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.
-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense
-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp
-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more
-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun
-Its probably best to functional and textual competition
-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato
-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate
-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to
-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me
-Ks should have specific links to the aff
-Links of omission aren’t a thing
-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery
Theory / T
-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.
- Current thoughts on common theory issues
-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable
-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's
-International fiat good
-Consult Process CP bad
-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations
-Word PIKS bad
-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on
-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful
CX Specific Notes
-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that
-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate
LD Specific Notes
-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.
-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments
-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified
-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please
-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR
-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge
-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.
-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”
I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.
I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:
If the content is effective writing or not.
Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?
Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic
Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?
Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?
Does the speech contain evidence and examples?
Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?
I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.
I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.
I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.
In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).
I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.
I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.
I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.
Quality of arguments. No intimidation tactics. As debate progresses want to see quality of counter arguments. Facts can be presented but not basis to win argument (more about logical flow and follow through). Talk at a pace that is understandable and short summary at the end always helps.
I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc., all that doesn’t matter to me.
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isn't sticky.
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me.
- absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do.
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e., extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blimpy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary.
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded.
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However, at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact.
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side.
- Defense must also be extended.
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive.
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though.
pls dont be lay
add me to the chain: email@example.com
gold toc , 3 years pf,cali state if that matters
Debated pf on the national circuit, read some Ks, some theory , went for a lot of impact turns etc
comfortable with anything in pfso i'll adapt to u, debate the way you think is best
will intervene on anything i percieve to be discriminatory/unsafe
send docs before case and rebuttal if going over 250 wpm
Theory is fine
Stock ks fine
ive gone for tricks a grand total of 3 times
high theory is gonna be tough so explain and slow down on tags, same for dense phil
if u have any questions ask me pre round
Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.
He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~35 Grand Finals, and chaired 12 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.
• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse
• NFHS Cultural Competence Course
General Notes for speakers:
- I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
- While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
- Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
- If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
- If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
- Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
- Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
- Roadmaps are appreciated.
- Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
- Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
- I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.
What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must
Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!
Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.
Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.
Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.
Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great
LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation
If you do not want to read everything on this -- TLDR: have fun and don't be stupid, bring me food for good speaks
- Junior at Dougherty Valley High School
- 5+ years PF experience, 2 years impromptu, 1 year of LD, 1 year of Parli
- Idk just tab stalk me
- My biggest accomplishment is 1-5 at ASU
- Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Send me your case before round
- Label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley GB v. Alsion Montessori SS."
- Have fun so I don't fall asleep
- Warrant responses or I won't vote on it
- Carded link extensions are stupid -- just re-explain the arg and ill buy it
- be aggressive its fun
- don't be homophobic/racist/sexist/ any -ist or ill drop you
- if you say something important in cross say it in speech too because I probably wont be listening
- be funny
- do whatever you want
- second rebuttal has to frontline
- first summary has to frontline
- should basically be mini summary
- new weighing in first ff is fine
- imo -- rounds cant be won in final but they definitely can be lost here
- if you do prog debate badly ill be sad
- run literally whatever you want I'll evaluate it
- I have a lot of experience with K's -- not so much with theory but I still understand it well
- friv is fun
If I cant understand you, I will say "clear" three times before I stop flowing completely (you'll probably lose)
I give an average of 26 speaks without bonuses
+0.3 if you:
- do a spin every time you turn an argument
- clap after all of your opponents speeches
- make my little pony references
- make your contention name a bear-related pun
+0.5 if you:
- send your case before round
- do a handstand in cross
- make a donut analogy
- find a legitimate way to impact out to dugongs
- bring me food (+0.5 for every snack you bring me)
Auto 30/29.9 if you:
- run Ranchoddas Shamaldas Chanchad K
- rap your entire final focus
- Cite Surya Muthu Devasenapathy as a source
- read 30 speaks theory
- run a progressive argument well (i have a high threshold for this)
I will dock your speaks if you:
- run a prog argument without understanding it
- misgender (ill probably drop you too)
- spread on novices
- act like a bad person
hi im hari! interlake hs (cx), fremont hs (moved) (ld), umich '27. did pf, congress, other things in ms.
email - hari[dot]debate[dot]0905[@]gmail[dot]com (ask anything clarifying and whatnot)
mich camp tournament-- i dont have any game changing opinions, other than the section just below this, you could probably not read any of this and be fine!
non-negotiables-- not comfy with death good, if this is a thing at the camp would appreciate it if it's not ready with me in the back; don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.
preferences-- i love it when people do judge instruction that's really cool and awesome and amazing i think. i like laughing so be funny it's great + will help speaks. be clear, especially because it's online. tech>truth.
arguments-- (can be convinced otherwise for all of these): condo/2nc cps are the only voters; only functional competition is important, no rvis.
i like really technical strategies or things like floating piks, impact turns, that are cool and interesting but really i dont care lol.
in general the more you explain things the better-- im familiar with most arguments but err on the side of explaining because im not super familiar with the topic (didnt assist at camp)--my decision will be easier and i'll have a better time judging if i know what is going on (dont throw around random acronyms).
have fun! if you play ssbu, have a really cool starbucks order, or a monkeytype/typeracer/etc score above 164, lmk!
I am a parent judge. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument in front of me on the topic given. I would be only based on the content and quality of the debate.
Clearly state the following:
⦁ Your value/criterion for the debate and how it is relevant on your side.
⦁ Your contentions/arguments supporting your side. No spreading please. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand.
⦁ Citations (do not count on the number but quality and relevancy) are required. Complete lack of citations is a red flag.
⦁ Rebuttals to your opponents arguments.
⦁ Any inconsistencies on the opponents side should be brought up but in a respectful manner.
⦁ Do not evade your opponents questions during cross examination but answer respectfully and to the point.
I am a volunteer lay judge. I've judged a variety of rounds, however, keep in mind that I'm still a parent. Spreading is frowned upon solely because it's hard for me to make sure I put everything on my flow - I might have to stop flowing just to be able to understand your arguments. I'll let you know if you're going too fast for me.
LD Debate is my favorite debate form to judge. I have a good amount of experience in LD debate, and I enjoy judging it.
I believe that LD is a very framework-oriented debate. Make sure you can tie your arguments back to your framework, as well as having some cards that support yours. I infer the word ought in the topic to mean a moral obligation, however, good reasoning for any particular framework can change my mind. If you're running frameworks such as Kant or other literature ones, please have card(s) explaining them as I am not familiar with them.
In general, I expect to see a polite and smooth debate from both sides. My speaker points start from 26 and go up from there. I like to see emotion, emphasis, facial expressions, and projection in your speaking. Mumbling and spreading will definitely be reflected in speaker points. Hand gestures are welcome, but don't go overboard and don't cover your face. I'd appreciate it if you kept your cameras on throughout the round, but if you have a technical issue, that's OK too. Don't be mean or insulting in any way to your opponent.
I love to judge Lincoln Douglas, and have met so many wonderful debaters in tournaments. If my feedback can sound negative, it's just that I can see so much potential in your future in the debate world. Keep on going debaters, and shoot for the stars!
- Clear and concise communication. I am more likely to vote for you if you nail your delivery with confidence.
- Sign post.
- Explain your case as if I know nothing. I want detailed speeches, refutes and impacts.
- For any wondering, I announce winners right after round to spare anticipation.
My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY
All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents
Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com
I am a policy debater at Liberty University.
- Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
- Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
- Line-by-line—- do it.
- Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
- case/da turns are great
- If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
- Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
- I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with
- Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
- Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
- Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
- Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
- Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
- Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
- Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
- If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
- I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
- I'm not sure that PF is debate.
- Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
- If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks
I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.
I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.
I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.
In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.
A Proud Indian Law Student from Bangalore is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents and is a debate and judge coach to Indian debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Proud to be the youngest person to break as a judge in multiple university-level international tournaments and an enlisted national level judge frequently in ISDS (Indian School of Debating Society). I genuinely want to create a beautiful world of debating and bring out the attractive potential of judging and debating within myself and others.
In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:
1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.
2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebuttal them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is accurate and why it is crucial in the debate and the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.
3. Weighing: Take the other side's best-case scenario, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why you've scored a solid win.
4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side or try to water down their issues without giving me a proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems complicated to engage with. Try your best!
5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and straightforward way. Complexity does not win debates; simplicity does. Clear structure and detailed but straightforward analysis make it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signalling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.
6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity are critical!
7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from different perspectives!
Good luck, everyone!
I am Nimish Jain, I am an incoming senior at Dougherty Valley High School. I have competed for a while in PF and did a little bit of speech. Please read my paradigm and email me if you have questions. If you want my flows please feel free to email me but depending on my mood I will give it.
tech (IF I AM SUPER TIRED I WILL TELL YOU AND I WILL MAKE THIS A ULTRA LAY DEBATE)
I am the most annoying judge when it comes to warrants. I want every little thing in case to be extended, if you don't extend a warrant into why nuclear war leads to extinction i won't give u extinction.
If you and the opps agree that this round should be a lay round then I can be a lay judge or if yall even want to have a fun round where you just read a bunch of fun stuff (ie.climate change good) then let me know I would be totally down to evaluate it.
For any tournament:
I am such a mid debater. Feel free to stalk me. Lay debate is superior but I enjoy tech too.
Top 14 at nationals. 3x Gold TOC (prom is the same day :(, i prefer my social life over debate), 2x Nationals
Update: I have the right to drop you if I believe you are being racist, homophobic, and etc. I believe debate should be a safe space and I wont allow you to advance if you act rude. This also applies to cross. I really hate seeing crosses where 1 person is just talking. I want to see a nice cross where both teams are respectful. Just done be mean in general.
I want case the disclosed to me:I want the doc and the cards. Also rebuttal doc will be nice. You don't have to send it to the opponents but please send it to me. How to send an email
Topic Knowledge: If it is public forum i know the topic otherwise any other event i don't know anything.
Evidence Sharing: You can call for evidence but like please don't like call for 100 cards otherwise I will knock your speaks down. Btw after round I will probs be asking for cards so if I do plz send it to me. How to cut a card
Speed: I don't care if you speak fast. I always speak fast in round. But if you do speak fast, please send speech doc. Otherwise, if I don't catch something I won't evaluate it.
Weighing: Please do it in SUMMARY AND FF. If it is not in both then i don't evaluate the weighing. I also like simple weighing like magnitude and stuff. If you are going to give complex weighing explain it well. How to weigh. I will evaluate new weighing in first FF. Unless the other teams says 2nd FF is too late to bring up new weighing then I wont evaluate it if they dont say it then I will evaulate it.
2nd Rebuttal: YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE. If you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal then i immediately look at 1st speaking teams flow and if they have access to their case then no matter what they will win. How to give a rebuttal
Summary and FF: They should be pretty much the same. NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FF. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE. How to give a summary
Cross: I don't care. I wont listen to cross. How to do good cross
Warranting/Implications: Plz provide a warrant and EXTEND it. Tho if you do extend without warranting and the opponents do not call you out I might give you the arg. But if they do call you out then I won't consider the response. Debate has become very Blibby and I hate blibbyness. PLEASE IMPLICATE I BEG. I KNOW WHAT YOUR DEFENSE IS DOING USUALLY BUT I WON'T EVAL IT IF U DIDNT TELL ME.
warranted ev>warranted analytics>unwarranted ev (UNLESS IT IS A STAT, I LOVE NUMBERS!!!!)>unwarranted analytics
Theory and K's: Also I wouldn't run theory in MS :). I understand theory and I will evaluate if it is run properly. I am ok with K's. I am also ok with performance and non-topical. What theory is I THNK DISCLOSURE ON WIKI IS BAD AND PARAPHRASING IS BAD I WILL HACK FOR THESE.
SIGNPOSTING IS NECESSARY: I need it otherwise I will be very confused and you don't want that happening.
Prepping: You have to time your own speech and prep. I won't do it because I am too lazy to.
Presumption: I am personally against presumption. I want to vote for the better debater so if I can't find a way to vote I will vote off a couple of things (based on priority).
If u tell me to vote for u off presumption then I will (But give me a reason why u deserve the presumption vote)
Who did the better link extensions
Who was the better lay debater
Who did the better weighing (if both teams lost case)
LINK EXTENSION: THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN SUMMARY AND BEYOND. IF NOT I DROP YOUR CASE.
If I am judging speech:
Have fun. I want to be entertained by your speech. Don't just give me the general 3 points. Give me something that makes you stand out because if you stand out you will do better. But if you stand out and fail then u will get low. A lot of times when i did speech i sang during my speech. Some of my favorite songs I have sang were hindi songs or nursery rhymes. I have even sang let it go in the past. But beware if u do that it better make sense.
LD judging: If I am judging LD then treat me like a flay. You can run whatever you want but you gotta explain it to me. I am totally down to judge Ks and stuff but dont expect me to fully understand it.
Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.
For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.
LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.
Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.
PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.
Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.
Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.
Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.
Good luck !
Hello, My name is Peace John-Kalio, I am a seasoned debater, experienced judge and a great coach.
I have gathered experience and exploits in different forms of Debating such as British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating format, Public Forum debates, Lincoln Douglas, Speech formats, and Canadian National Debate format etc.
As a judge i pirotiize logic and contents within debates and how speakers are able to logically defend their side and also logically rebutt their opponeths side.
I also pioritze equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants in general to have read tournaments briefings and manuals as I also do so myself in other for each participants to know what is expected from them.
The above also makes knowing different procedures like role fulfillment easier and how to tackle different types of motions and the burdens these different types impose on speakers therefore making rounds more engaging. I deem it as valuable for speakers to be aware of this.
Going further I appreciate when speakers are able to apply special skills and techniques within rounds such as counterfactual and fiats etc.
I also appreciate when speakers are time conscious and employ techniques like Pioritizing more important arguments so when time is up they are not at a loss.
In conclusion I like when speakers in whip and summary speeches are able to emphasize and compare why they win with the arguments brought up by their previous partners and how those arguments beat the opponents by drawing comparisons and not necessarily trying to add extentions. Speakers are also advised and encouraged to keep cameras on during rounds in an online tournament unless in situations that they absolutely cannot afford to.
I have also participated in cultural diversity training as a judge, several judging workshops and of course several tournaments both as a speaker and a judge.
Do your thing. I am not here to limit you. I love debate and did it all four years in high school and a little in college. I ran a K aff on the national circuit in high school as a little background. But that doesn’t really matter. It is up to y’all on what you want the debate to be about. So please debate however you feel you will do best. I want to see debaters debating about what they know not what they think I would like.
On a side note go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. It’s the UDL I am from. Also I want to be in the email chain. My email is email@example.com thanks!
i need content warnings for SA and self harm. please refrain from reading arguments with relevent content or arguments that preach about the goodness of death.
hi! i'm neel or nk (they/them). i did circuit ld for a season and circuit pf for a little more. i attend the university of michigan (go blue), but i don't debate for the school.
put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
tech > truth but a combination is ideal. i also don't care about tech or truth if you have been disrespectful.
generally more progressive for pf - cool with speed, a fan of disclosure and cut cards, and good for progressive arguments.
i enjoy well thought out debates that break out early, that feature high-quality evidence, clever strategy, and good contestation. this is largely how i determine speaker points.
i disagree with the idea of sticky defense - if you want an argument in your back pocket for the final focus, you should extend it.
i'm a good judge for underutilized strategies (impact turns, circumvention, presumption, etc.)
new disads in the 2nd rebuttal are fine and can be strategic. just make sure to do weighing on them.
probability weighing is not real - probability is a function of defense, so just win a sufficient risk of a link.
read turns case arguments. please.
policy - 1
better for CP theory than most other policy judges, but i think it makes for stale debates.
better for low off debates with strong case pushes.
evidence quality is very important and can decide debates (both through spin and ethics challenges).
impact turns are cool but i don't evaluate wipeout or death good.
k - 1/2
i have a soft spot for unique k affs but i'm 50/50 on framework. not picky on what route you decide to take (hard right fairness is just as viable as any other strategy).
i dislike overviews that "implicitly" answer everything - i strongly prefer hearing the lbl work after a short and sweet overview.
best for identity kritiks, good for the stock stuff, and bad for pomo literature.
i like unique presumption and tailored case arguments against k affs.
t/theory - 2/3
i don't enjoy hearing nebel debates but i'll still flow and evaluate arguments made on the t page.
competing interps, no rvis, drop the arg for theory. drop the debater for t.
great for cp theory, terrible for frivolous shells. big fan of disclosure. not a big fan of other violations sourced out of round.
not going to evaluate arguments that police appearance.
tricks - 4/strike
these confuse me - they're often read blippily and quickly, making me a very meh judge for these.
i evaluate debates after the 2ar and will not allow an evil demon to make me vote aff or neg.
phil - 4/strike
i think i haven't read enough or fostered a strong enough interest to want to listen to these debates.
i can understand kant, and that's about it. do with this what you will.
Please stay focussed and concise in your motion . All evidence that you present needs to be connected strongly to the overall spirit of the arguement and motion. Good luck !
Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.
General Notes for speakers:
· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.
· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.
· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.
· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished
· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.
Arguments and Cases:
· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)
· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.
· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.
· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.
· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”
· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.
VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.
The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria
· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.
· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.
· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.
I've debated for all four years of high school, and I continue to debate British Parliamentary on the collegiate level with the Debate Union @ UCLA. I have competition experience mainly in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate, but I have also competed in World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. Some notable competitions I've qualified to are CHSSA State Quals, NSDA Nationals, and NPDL TOC.
I'd say I'm a fairly standard judge. Some notes:
- I will judge as if I went into the round knowing nothing about the topic, so it is your job to call out any misconstrued evidence/incorrect arguments.
- Interact with your opponent's case. Either through rebuttal or weighing.
- Please signpost/have organization for your case. I can flow even if your case is a little all over the place, but not being organized increases the chance that a judge will miss something, plus it makes your case less effective.
- If you speak pretty quickly I can keep up, but don't do it to the point of incomprehensibility. AKA do not spread.
- Every claim should be warranted. Even if you don't have access to statistics/sources, you should explain with logical reasoning as to why an impact comes into being. Just asserting something without backing it up with some explanation does not get you your impact.
- You should clearly state what your impacts are, and why I should consider your impacts over those of the other team. Not clearly weighing impacts means that the judge must make that consideration themselves, and that is not something which you typically want.
- I was not a super circuit debater during my time in high school, so I am not the best person to run a K with. Given that, I do know what it is, and I have heard some in round before. If you feel that you must, you can, but explain why your K takes precedence over the debate, and give clear explanation as to what kind of argument you are running, as your opponents may not have even heard of a K before.
- If you want extra feedback after the round, or need to add me to an email chain, my email is email@example.com.
As always, please be courteous and respectful towards everyone in the round at all times- you know the drill. Good luck and have fun!
now on a serious note
hey i'm jae! im a first year out and competed at torrey pines in san diego (torrey pines kt/tk). debated pf nat circ for the first three years of hs and coached my senior year. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, ndcas, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments.
debate is all about learning to get better, don't be afraid to use me as a resource
if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime. [insert shameless coaching plug here]
- comparative worlds
- competing interps > reasonability
- theory/t > k > case
- drop the arg > drop the debater
- no rvis
- fairness > education
- text > spirit
- ethical certainty
- presume first speaking team
- debate is a game, play however you want to win
- i flow/tabula rasa
- i disclose and will also disclose speaks if you ask
- read and wear whatever you'd like
- add me to the chain (same email above); send case/ev docs before round; use email chains, not google docs
- flip/preflow before the round. fast evidence exchanges. i don't flow anything over time.
- you can do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.
- do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways
- i am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. pref dont spread. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half.
- i'm pretty generous with speaks bc screws suck :(
- i don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. i view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. it's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.
- asking questions after the round is fine. light post-rounding is fine. be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, i will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.
- you can swear in round. don't make it excessive though.
- absolutely nothing remotely _ist; L20
- everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive. defense is never sticky.
- every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best
- signpost PLEASE
- weigh weigh weigh. link comparison. warrant comparison. i vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact (clean pieces of offense). i like voting on turns but they must be weighed and have impacts. pre-req weighing is the best but do it right.
- collapse in the back half and do metaweighing
- high threshold for extensions. i don't acknowledge blippy extensions on anything. link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and ff.
- in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. if these criteria are not met, i will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link.
- if you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.
- i believe debate is a game with educational aspects; that means i will literally vote off of anything from death good to a game of chess if that's the consensus rotb
- regardless of paraphrasing, you MUST have cut cards or you're capped at max 26.5 speaks for being cringe
- if a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, i’ll give them double 30s
- if your opponent has no path to the ballot, invoke a TKO and you win with 30s
i hate intervening. as a result, you can lie, read false evidence, etc. if it is not called out by your opponents, i will not do anything. in my view, my role as a judge is not to be a referee nor an educator (which is a coach's job), but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. all the "educating" will happen AFTER the round, but i see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round.
TL;DR: collapse, extend, weigh pls :D
i do not require trigger warnings. i will not reward including them, nor will i penalize the absence of them. this is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see J. Haidt and G. Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind) this means that i will never opt out of an argument. i will not hack for trigger warning good theory; i am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though i will not hack for these either).
go crazy. i ran a lot of framework when i debated. structural violence is my comfort zone. default util.
- must send everyone a speech doc if reading any prog args
- i evaluate any prog arguments (Theory, K, T, tricks, PICs, etc.)
- pref shell format
- i dont care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny
- im more familiar with theory and ran it at a couple tournaments
- im wayyy less familiar with Ks so flesh out and explain your Ks well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with model minority and ive hit quite a few fem Ks throughout my career
- if you are going to swing wildly outside of the pf meta, and read phil-rooted args, i am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. make sure you're extending the rotb, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.
if you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, i will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory excludes me because i don't know how to debate it" response. do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.
as an aside to this ^, if you read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, i'm probably just going to intervene. this is one of the worst takes i've ever heard, and i'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity propagate. this is the one spot i feel 0 shame in intervening.
remember to have fun and make friends!
guess my favorite esports team: +0.5 speaks
guess my favorite hockey team: +0.5 speaks
if you're dulaney faith zhao: -30 speaks with a loss
for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman.
I value clear articulation. I do not value unnecessarily fast speech. Do not spread because I will not understand it, which will affect points. I value quality over quantity.
I'm currently a high school student at Mount Vernon High School in Washington state! I've competed very frequently in speech & debate since middle school, and my mom is the coach of our team. My pronouns are he/they and my email is firstname.lastname@example.org ! Feel free to reach out if you need help or have any questions at all, debate is my favorite thing to do, my favorite thing to talk about, and probably my favorite thing ever! (Therefore, debaters are my favorite people!!)
Debate-wise, I've been competitive in policy, lincoln douglas, and congressional debate. I also do Worlds Schools debate and am a member of the 2022-2023 USA Development team. For IEs, I typically compete in impromptu and extemp.
If I'm judging you, you're definitely a younger debater so here are just 3 things I hope to see in any round (of speech or debate!) --
- Creativity! I love it when debaters do their own research, go with arguments they believe in, and take risks! If you're passionate about something, you'll probably be infinitely more persuasive and I'll love that!
- Refutation! Nothing makes a debate round less debate-y than when the debaters are 'two ships passing in the night'- try to engage with what your opponents are saying! Believe me, saying something, even if it's not the best argument or going to win you the debate, is almost always better than saying nothing!
- Have fun! I've talked to SO many younger debaters (from my team and others!) who always feel so bad after rounds and are SO harsh on themselves. I promise- everybody's had a bad round before and no single round is reflective of you as a competitor, and no single round will influence your future as a welcomed member of the community! So many of you are smarter than you think, and I've never watched a single speech where I haven't been astonished by the potential I've seen!
* I have also learned I love organization <3 ! Numbering your arguments, signposting (saying when you're moving from one point to another), etc. !
Adlai E. Stevenson (IL) '23| Pronouns: he/him | Email: email@example.com
Previously competed in PF both on the local and national circuit. Currently a college student studying computer science and philosophy who does some coaching work for debate nonprofits.
Set up an email chain or SpeechDrop before the round (add me). Send a card doc before each speech where you read new evidence. pdf/word good, google docs bad.
We are skipping grand cross unless it's a panel and replacing it with a 1 min prep period.
Assuming you're clear, I'm fine with anything up to 300 wpm, but if you're really unclear your speaks will probably tank. With that said, you must slow down if your opponents call "clear." I take this very seriously; please be inclusive in your style of debate.
Defense isn't sticky. The argument needs to be both in summary and final focus for me to evaluate it (although 1st final focus can read new weighing).
Yes, extend, but I'm not a stickler for specifics. I would rather hear a slow, paraphrased explanation of your argument rather than hear you spread a prewritten extension.
If there's no offense, I presume 1st speaking team (but you can change my mind).
Ethics>Tech>Truth. Debate is a strategy game that's only worth playing if it's fair. As a default, my ballot will come down to whichever team can show me the strongest link into the most important impact. You can read any argument in front of me with the caveat that poorly warranted arguments can get poorly warranted responses.
With that said, there are some things I'll always intervene against:
- Bigotry - Saying anything overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will be an automatic drop for fairly obvious reasons.
- Evidence Ethics - Distorting, fabricating, or clipping evidence is a drop. I don't actively monitor the doc and check every card, so it'll mostly be up to the debaters to point out any abuse.
- Abusive Tactics - Includes but isn't limited to: not slowing down after being told "clear," going egregiously overtime, reading new arguments in the back half, being unnecessarily rude to your opponents, etc. I won't drop you for something minor, but I'll definitely drop the arg or tank speaks.
Theory needs to be in shell format and read immediately after the violation. Theory should be a binary question (e.g. yes/no: debaters should disclose). I'm voting off reasonability if the theory debate leaves the binary question and becomes nitpicky or hyper-specific because then it starts to become an ethics>tech question for me. I'm not a fan of friv theory; you can read it but the threshold for responses against it is super low.
I'm comfortable with stock Ks or Ks that have an explicit link to your opponent's case. If you're planning on reading a K aff or something non-topical, I'd prefer you slow down and walk me through the argument more carefully. I find topicality to be really persuasive, so unless you know what you're doing, I wouldn't recommend running something like performance, identity, etc. in front of me.
Average is a 28.5
Round strategy + clarity + creativity + being funny will raise speaks.
I'm also a big fan of Proteus Debate Academy, everyone should subscribe they're awesome.
Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.
I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.
This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.
So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.
So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.
In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.
I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.
So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.
So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.
Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...
(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)
Some things to consider:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
My judging philosophy is simple; come up with a good structure, logical arguments, short summary speech and I shall consider you.
Debating is, according to me, more of what you present and less of what you know. I do not prefer long extensive arguments. Just come on the stage, give me handful strong arguments, do impact assessment of your points, make a few rebuttals and you are good to go.
Refer to these specific points-
1. Topic knowledge- You need not be scared from an unknown topic, I won’t judge your past knowledge on the topic, and rather I will give weightage to how you interpret it in the round and explain it initially. But, at the same, you may get some brownie points if you insert a fact and impress me!
2. Jargons & Speed- Do not go too fast in order to keep forth all your points and disturb your flow. Either select a sensible number of points or shorten all of them in order to present them wisely. If I am unable to match the speed, you have the chances to lose.
3. Rebuttals- I would love to hear logical rebuttals from you, but even the wacky ones won’t harm. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I’ll really like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.
4. Summary- A good summary is what I’ll appreciate. Just be very specific in it; you can also add a couple of new points in it but prefer reiterating the previous ones.
I am not going to judge you on each and every word you speak but make sure, most of them make sense. Be honest, don’t pretend on the know-how and do well.
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.
All the best!
I’ll prefer good speaks, not speakers!
Ask me in round.
hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for three years.
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr: typical flow judge. debate is a game. im a little rusty so bear with me. be chill. ask me about my paradigm.
ms/novice/jv: frontline, collapse (PLEASE), weigh, be kind. dont run progressive stuff (PF). feel free to read the rest of my paradigm but do whatevers comfortable for u :))
-- light banter with ur opponents can be fun, but being actively mean/harassing = dropped speaks (and maybe round). act exclusionary and the round ends immediately + lowest speaks.
-- anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings (do not read them)
-- do email chain or an analog --- evidence sharing like this makes me cringe. send cases + docs but im not flowing off them
-- ~225 wpm max, depends on clarity. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed! 5 sec grace period.
you miiiiight change my mind:
-- 99% of the time probability weighing is fake and abusive and invites judge intervention.
-- extensions = uq + link + impact, or at the VERY LEAST link + impact. uncontested internal links meh, sticky defense meh
-- i am a big fan of ballot directive language ("vote on X," "you're voting here b/c: ")
-- evidence abuse = L20-25. do theory/IVI/postround. that said, i generally won't go fishing.
-- i dont flow cross but it will affect speaks (dont filibuster). flex prep is ok if everyone agrees
-- i am probably more techy than you think
-- if i hear "voter issue," "weigh probability," or "quality of life" i will start frothing at the mouth and ur speaks will cap at 27.5
-- PLS COLLAPSE OMG
-- very little experience with anything prog, but open to everything non-exclusionary except friv/tricks (unless ur memeing with ur opponents). i might screw u --- treat me like flay at best. pls tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet and slow down a little :)
-- [PF] if u try steamrolling in a non-varsity round im docking speaks at best and dropping u at worst, especially at locals
-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks can be (and often are). speaks will be determined by your strategy + cross + signposting (and anything else mentioned on here). locals avg = 28, nats avg = 28.5
-- i actually think that rhetoric and narrative are important in pf and undervalued by natcir tech judges. doing that stuff will boost speaks :)
-- see this doc for free speaks!!!
-- +.4 if u reference(mr. pibb) or (pbj) in one of your speeches
-- if i will presume by coinflip or both teams can postround for 30 sec
-- postrounding is educational and good for judges. L30s if you convince me. dont be difficult tho.
-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!
About me: I'm a varsity member of Downtown Magnet high school. I go by the pronouns for she/her. This is my first year in debate, and I have only debated policy so far. I'm not very familiar with LD and parliamentary debating though I am super open to learning new ways of debating!
Concerning my preferences:I'm open to any arguments as long as you explain them well. Please clearly state how the argument stands and why I should vote for it. Any argument could win the ballot as long as it is ran properly.
- I'm not familiar with theory but if it makes sense then I would vote for it.
- I like it when people explain their arguments, explain how it links, and how it works. I think explaining it makes it easier for me to grasp the argument to take into account while voting. Explain what I should weigh more concerning your arguments and why I should vote for you.
- I prefer it if you can send the documents that you are reading so I can properly follow along. I don't want to miss any arguments you say.
- Try your best! The point is to have fun; debate can be a bit nerve-wracking at times but the point of it is to try new things. The way you debate does not matter to me, I'll try my best to keep up with the arguments. Please don't use foul language, respect your opponents. HAVE FUN.
Again I'm quite new to these new forms of debate, but I will try my best to judge to the utmost of my ability.
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.
My email: email@example.com
For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.
Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC
My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.
I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.
To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.
I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.
So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.
Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:
Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.
I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.
I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.
Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.
Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.
College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.
lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.
Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.
When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.
Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)
I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.
Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.
Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.
Have fun debating!
Hi, I'm a first time parent judge. I prefer slower speaking, structured and logical arguments. Good luck!
I like well structured arguments with coherent and thorough arguments.
I am not a fan of spreading and will take off points if this is done after I request it explicitly.
I am a parent judge.
Be respectful and track your time. Honor your time limits.
Arguments should be delivered properly with emphasis on communication delivery. Be precise and communicate your point well.
I do like to take notes and would be doing it during the rounds.
Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (firstname.lastname@example.org)
i debate at NYU currently
update for nato security coop
tbh i cut like two or three files on this topic for a camp, but that was before the topic really got shaped in terms of the arguments that are being run now, so honestly, i don't rlly know this topic that well. i also think this topic is bad and my initial reaction to it was that it was just way too small. i hope i was wrong and I'm excited to see some of these AFFs, but w that said, i'll probs be a little more AFF leaning on T.
For the sake of all things good in life, cringe, and the activity of debate... call me Manny or Emmanuel, not "judge"
Phil: Debate is a space where people come to test their intellectual capacities through a discussion about the reading of the 1AC. I don’t care what your methodology is for accessing that discussion, but you should be able to defend it. I love debate and have a lot of fun, so it is more enjoyable for me to see other debaters having fun.
Bias: I can't promise to set aside my biases entirely (I try my best, but I don't think anyone can 100% do this). I do promise to evaluate debates as fairly as I can and give you the most valuable feedback. I'm always going to be open to questions at the end of debate, and don't be afraid to disagree with the RFD. I've experienced a fair share of inexperienced judges, and strive to be as far from that as possible. I default to common sense unless you tell me otherwise.
<3: The nuance between, "The plan is not topical" and "The plan is so obviously, wildly untopical" can make or break debates. Don't mistake this for ad homs, but don't forget that debate is about persuasion as much as it is about research, and argumentation—how you articulate your argument makes a difference. I'll clarify here that tech and truth aren't mutually exclusive, but judge instruction on how to evaluate a certain argument is useful. Here, I'll also insert a link to a certain segment of Juju's lecture that embodies how I feel about tech v. truth. A dropped argument is true to the extent that you explain it.
Spreading is good. Speaking slow is good. Debate ultimately relies on communication. I know how hard it might be for you to grapple with the idea of maybe not spreading incomprehensibly through tags and analytics, but it's just that simple. If I can't hear what you said, it won't get on my flow. Just be smart and self-aware about your spreading. You don't automatically get higher speaks because you spread faster.
Plan texts are cool. I think a lot of policy AFFs have poor evidence and can be beaten with analytics sometimes. I generally dislike the ones that “The USFG should do the resolution in its [insert plan focus]” plan texts because they are a moving target for me. I will gladly fill in for the neg here and probably err on any theory if there isn’t much contextualization coming out the 2AC. I value the quality of evidence (because it’s really hard to find), but I won’t look at you sideways if your warrants are SLIGHTLY inconsistent with your tag unless the opposing team points it out.
2ACs should integrate extensions on the line by line. 2AC overviews are fine, but I won't flow them as a response to any case arg made by the 1NC. Long 2AC overviews are boring.
Case debates are so underrated. Please do it more
I love weird, specific, techy CPs. Advantage CPs and PIKs are my favorite. A lot of teams are usually bad at explaining why the perm doesn’t solve beyond a random card in the block or saying “Perm links to NB”. Good analysis is rewarded on the perm debate. Case solvency usually needs more time spent as well.
I don't believe in judge kick lmao sry
Similar to 1AC's, I think a lot of DA's have terrible link ev. I don't think it's the fault of the card cutters, but rather the topic committee for picking topics with terrible neg ground. I also think generics are generics for a reason - you can win on them if you debate them well. I'm willing to vote aff on any part of the DA that neg loses (i.e. if there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w)
I read afropess my senior year (alongside ecofem, A. Mollow, and governmentality at a point). That is the only lit base I have a comparatively solid understanding of. Other than that, I understand the general thesis of DnG, dark Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, and some other pomo Ks, but do not expect me to fill in the lines. In those debates, I will flow cross and value/reward digestible explanations on the line by line.
I'm more attracted to small alternatives/advocacies than big ones. The former is more like "Discourse within this round is good" while the latter is like, "We organize an international communist revolution". I think the bigger ones lose more often to the args that are foundational on the "How do we get there?" questions. With that said, presumption becomes more convincing on the big advocacies than the smaller ones.
Be clear whether or not you're kicking the alt in the 2NR.
I’m not the judge for you if you are not black (especially white) and you want to read anti-blackness. Same thing w two dudes reading fem. So on so forth. autoloss 0 speaks. Content > Strategy. It’s the same thing if you read bizcon and cap in the same 1NC. Do not embody perf cons.
I've read several K AFFs the majority of my senior year (and still do in college). Even though I love the K so much, remember that I still value the clash and technical component of debating, so don't just read a 2.5 hr overview and then say "that was the work i did in the overview" in response to line by line. That is not debating. Also, do not come into the debate with the idea that your K just sort of subsumes every conceivable notion of human thought that doesn't directly engage with the body of literature you introduce. There isn't any theory of power that can intricately explain every single other theory of power.
With that said, KvK debates are fun but easily get muddy. Fortunately, there are easy ways for you to get out of the muddiness (specific link contextualization, using the grammars of your opponents, specific quotes, etc.).
I do not appreciate you reading a K Aff as a justification for being rude and disrespectful. A lot of K debaters in general have felt the need to assume this perceived role of K debaters (especially identity K debaters) as just rude and like all French revolution "F the state and F you". No. Your K authors aren't saying to be rude to people, so don't do it. Don't confuse that with being assertive which is excellent.
It should be related to the topic. You cannot just read a K AFF that has nothing to do with the resolution---you will definitely lose on T. I know how tempting it might be given the low prep burden, but even one card or two cards that establish a relationship to the resolution is enough.
I love performance AFFs and respect the debaters who have the courage to do it and make it look so easy. I also don't care if you choose not to read cards; just make it something flowable.
On a scale of 1-10, how confident am I to render a ballot on certain debates?
Policy vs. Policy: 8.2
Policy vs. T: 6.3
Policy vs. K: 8
K vs. FW: 7.9
K vs. K: 8.1
K vs. Cap K: 9
K vs. Antiblackness Ks: 9.3
K vs. Pomo Ks: 7.2
If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it (i.e., procedural, reason to reject the team, PIK solves case *these are not mutually exclusive, but it helps in terms of impact framing*)
Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.
If you feel like there is an ethics violation, I'd rather you make it as an argument than stop the debate unless you feel the ethics violation is making you seriously uncomfortable or unable to continue the debate. Here, I'll insert that homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, sexism, and any other "ism" that expresses deep prejudice towards any specific group warrants 0 speaks and an auto loss. Ad homs are also weird.
More than 3 condo probably isn't good against common AFFs that were alr on the wiki. Disclosure is good.
Fairness is an impact if it's an intrinsic good. Otherwise, it's an internal link to education and clash. Predictability controls everything.
v. K Aff: If the 2NR doesn't have a way to prove why you can access the critical lit/discourse of the 1AC (i.e. TVA, SSD) then aff offense on your model becomes so attractive. PIKS, counter-advocacies, and your regular CP + disad debates are smart if deployed correctly.
v. Policy Aff: If you think I'm slightly on edge about whether or not the plan text is topical, good impact debating should mitigate that. If the plan is "obviously" not topical, then that should be clear to me from the 1NC. A single line as to why I should prefer the interp or C/I is necessary.
I believe non-traditional AFFs can be topical because "affirming" the resolution is entirely up to the terms the debaters set on. That means I have a high bar for voting on T against non-trad AFFs (especially ones that don't impact turn the resolution). That doesn't mean if you read non-trad you shouldn't work hard to win your model of debate, but I will not just sort of default to normative ways of affirming the resolution.
Cross ex is the most interesting time of the debate. It is where debaters actively interact with each other. I don't flow cross, but I pay close attention to and will write down arguments that are made. I've seen entire K links from cross make it into the 2NR.
If you run high theory and can't answer questions about your thesis sufficiently, you will likely lose.
The nuance between assertive and rude are apparent and you lose speaks for the latter.
Tech -----x--------------- Truth
K ----------x---------- Policy
AT x-------------------- A2
Turns case x-------------------- O/W
Saitama -x----------------------- Goku
Ins and outs are fine.
Some of my favorite current/past debaters & coaches atm: *subject to change* Will Baker, Darrian Carroll, DB, Eu, Tyler Vergho, Raam Tambe, Azja Butler, Nae Edwards, Greg Zoda, Joe Leeson-Schatz, Aden Barton, Gabriel Chang-Deutsch, Julian Kuffour, Abhis Sedhai, John Sharp
+0.3 speaks if you reference any of the following:
Debating for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023
LAMDL 2022-23 National Qualifier
LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion
Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com
Tech > Truth
All four years of high school I've strictly ran policy affs and neg Strats that being said I am most familiar with such arguments, and you have a better chance at getting my ballot.
T: I'm not too fond of the t debate. However, I will vote on it if the team does good extensions on it. This means explain why your interpretation matters and contextualize the neg ground lost and why that matters. Often T debates get watered down because of a lack of explanation of why it matters within the debate round. that being said I often buy reasonability arguments.
I'm a fan of CP debates this is where I generally spent most of my first years of debate. I won't really buy your cp if all you do is card dump every speech, rather give me explanations of how the CP is mutually exclusive and ESPECIALLY give me the run down for the net benefit debate. I think this is especially true when the cp has an internal net benefit as I believe teams often forget that aspect of the cp debate. If you run a cp with two net benefits that means one in the DA and one internal.
I'm fine with whatever DA you want to run as long as by the 2nr I have a pretty clear impact scenario that means you must be expanding this impact scenario throughout the entire debate round. DONT CARD DUMP
I've become somewhat familiar with K debate I can definitely keep up with a good amount of the arguments that are made, however, if you are a top-level K debater that goes for nitpicky strategies, I may not be your judge for this as I still don't have the best understanding.
I'm your judge for theory I understand most theory debates, and this is where I spent most of my junior year. I'll vote on condo if the team can explain in round and out round impacts. I honestly think most theory arguments work.
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )
Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)
Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.
TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)
Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.
If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.
Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge
Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.
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!
Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)
If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask
If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts
I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.
As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.
Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity
Mavericks get 6 mins prep
Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.
I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.
Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind
Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge
2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in
Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.
FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.
Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.
Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.
Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.
LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience
MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.
Hall of Fame
Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir Akorede. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.
Within a large time frame, i have gathered experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.
As a judge, I enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they attack engage the opponent's arguments and not their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge interprets the audience.
I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.
When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy when they stick to their assigned tasks.
I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.
I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.
I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.
Sioux Falls Jefferson LD and IE Coach
"Sauce Boss" - CH
Debate Rounds Judged: A lot
Speech Rounds Judged: 20-30
Aberdeen Central ‘21
Tabula Rasa Judge overall
I like to disclose, if you have an issue with that let me know.I think the games that tournaments try to play of not allowing it is annoying and not cool.
I lean left. Do with that info what you will
Be funny, tell jokes, use analogies, make me laugh and you will automatically get a bump in speaks. Debate is supposed to be fun, make it that way. Items that make me laugh include - Lakers, Warriors, Astros, Vikings, 49ers, Saints, and Ronaldo Slander, mentioning the rapper Future, or by dunking on politicians
New in the 2 = Dumb. Do not make new args in non constructive speeches. I am a 8.5-9 on Speed as well. I have a very high threshold when it comes to the argument of In Round Abuse happening, to me it is an all or nothing argument, not a time suck. I have a high bar when it comes to me voting on RVIs, Condo/Dispo. If you bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them. Running Disclosuse Theory with me as a judge = 0 Speaks, A Loss, and me being annoyed for however long the debate is. Stop being a baby and debate, you do not need all of your coaches to do the work for you and prep out a case.
Word usage to avoid with me as your judge -
Racial Slurs, Excessive swearing (a well placed curse is okay once and while), “queen” and “king”, slay, poggers, he/she “ate it up”. All of these are cringe and will result in speaker points being docked. (For context someone said poggers, slay, and ate it up in a round so I felt necessary to add this)
How I give Speaker Points
I think speaker points are possibly the worst thing about debate since there is not a universal system on what makes a "good speaker". You should not get 25 speaks because you talk fast to a lay judge or get 30 because you spread to a circuit judge. So here is how I give out my speaks and what each means.
23 and Below- Did something in the round that was out of pocket and probably not ethical (IE: -isms, ists)
24-26 - Below Average speaker, you get up in the round and make some arguments but not ones that sound good. Needs serious improvement in more than one area
27 - Average. This is what each speaker starts out in the round for me, you go into the round with 27 speaker points by default
28-29 - Above Average to Elite Speaker - you make some great arguments and have a great flow along with signposting, doing good line by line, and being clear while also formulaic when you speak
30 - The Best Speaker I have seen all year - I do not think I have given out one 30 in all of my judging maybe ever, so this is a high bar. You will need to be perfect to get this. You need to not stumble once, be razor efficient with words and just dice your opponent up.
Ways to get more Speaks in .1s in the Round
Being Funny, Smart, and being a bit sassy in CX is ways to get you some points with me
Making an argument I was thinking of and then saying, shows a high level of talent.
Ways to lose Speaks with me as the Judge.
Running Disclosure Theory, Speed Ks, or just paraphrasing things in general.
Being a meanie head
I think that IEs should be based how well you can give me whatever information you have. Oratory, Inform, Interp etc are not my thing even though I have competed in all of those events. If you have me in non extemp, just talk good, and if you have me in Extemp, just know I could really care less about how good you talk and if you give me fluff, I will be to tell if you are actually saying really anything substantive. Content and analysis is way to get the one with me in the back.
I want offense offense offense, that's how you win with me as a judge in the back, I want to see offense or you will not get my ballot. Do good weighing, Warrant analysis, and clobber your opponent into the ground, and you will get my ballot at the end of the round. While I do not coach PuFo directly, I will most likely have some what of an understanding of the topic but go easy on lingo based in the topic unless I state otherwise. I do not like paraphrased when I am your judge, I think it allows bad debaters to get an advantage. I will not vote you down simply for the fact that you have a case like that but I will be very inclined to listen to Paraphrase theory and that you should vote down the other team for it. But once again, you will have to read that theory argument for me to vote the other team down on it. I think public forum debate can be very lizard brained in the fact that everyone runs the same argument and it gets very boring. I will love to see you run arguments that have sick warrents and great links, I will be much more likely to vote on that compared to a not well thought out case. I am a 8 for speed and prefer tech debate to anything.I default to a CBA FW unless told otherwise. Counter Plan Cases are okay and so are K style of cases. Generally speaking your 2AR/NR should just be voters and why you win the round by framing in the context of the debate (IE: Impact Calc, Solvency)
Do not ask if you can have first question, if you spoke first just start CX. Do not say, "off the clock roadmap", just give me an order. Just say, "Everyone Ready" instead of asking each person in the round, asking everyone wastes my time and yours.
I know a lot about Traditional LD, and Circuit LD is what I know best, and philosophy as a whole. This is what I coach for Sioux Falls Jefferson High School so there is a good chance I am well informed on what the current topic is. That being said I have a Policy Esque approach to LD, I help cut arguments and write cases as such. I debated policy for as long as it was around in South Dakota and was something that I still think can help make other debates better! If you want to CPs, DAs, Ks, I am your judge, I will be able to buy any scenario you give me as long as you can explain it. The best way to win my ballot as a judge is to put offense on the flow and give me good voters, and just writing my ballot for me. Framework is just kinda there and if it is a round that is heavy on it, obv I will listen and be able to vote based off this but throwing a hail mary in the 2AR/2NR about how you win the round because of FW is not for me and will not gain you any ground. I'll be able to keep up with pretty much everything, I lean HEAVILY more toward tech as stated above but Framework debate is not for me, I will be looking more on the basis of the contention level. Good impact calc + solvency offense & defense = my ballot
I am a 8 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast. I will vote not anything that is - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks(aka Speed Bad etc), Meme arguments, and Actor CPs. I flow CX and think it is important for argument developing and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense.
Notions I carry with me into the round -
Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.
Death is (probably) bad
Refer to LD and Pufo for framework and weighing arguments. Be the better debater and I will vote for you. I have minimal experience and do not care about this event nearly as much as I do the others.
TL:DR - Tech>Truth. I will vote on Paraphrase theory. Offense wins my ballot. Please signpost and do proper line by line. Disclosure Theory, or Bad Ks = dumb. There is no 3NR/AR
2) Have good evidence.
3) Give me voters.
4) Don't forget your framework.
5) Don't be boring; have fun.
Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), c/o 2023
If you need to contact me or create an email chain, use email@example.com
Hi! My name is Dhruv, and I co-captain the LD team at IMSA. I'll keep things short:
1) Be nice.
2) Debate well. This includes:
a)Signposting.I cannot stress this enough -- you must tell me where to look on the flow. Point me towards specific subpoints, contentions, and evidence. Go down the flow systematically, because if I can't tell where you're at, it'll be tough for me hand you a W.
b) Evidence.Include a whole host of evidence -- quanitative, qualitive, philosophical, and more. And remember, you must contextualize your evidence; I like one solid piece over 45 different cards that are very tangentially related to your arguments. And on that note, I care more about how strong your arguments are, over the quantity that you present.
c) Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters.Five times should be enough. Please give me reasons to vote for you at the end of your speech. Both sides should spend about 1-2 minutes doing so, and I don't care how you give your voters (completly seperate or dispersed throughout your speech) -- just do it.
d) And the most important thing: framework. This isn't PF, this isn't Policy, this isn't Congress. The whole premise of LD is a value and a value criterion, and you must remember this. Don't give me your value at the beginning of your constructive, and then throw it on the back burner for the rest of your speech. Forget your value, forgot getting good speaks.
3) Have fun. Don't be monotone, don't be boring.
Add me to your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Currently, I coach at the University of Utah. Formerly, I coached policy at CSU Fullerton & speech/debate at Honor Academy.
I have been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, my experience leaning heavily towards HS/MS parliamentary debate, lincoln-douglas, policy debate, & individual events. My experience competing begins in 2012 & is as follows:
- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)
- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)
- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)
- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)
As a policy debater (2A/1N), my experience was exclusively kritikal/performative - the cases I would run were a mash of feminism & futurisms, sci-fi, &/or cyborgs. On neg, I ran set col, fem IR, academy, & read a lot of soft-left answers on-case. In general, the breadth of my experience across various debate formats has allowed me to be very particular with the debates that I enjoy watching. Still, I'll watch anything.
Truth > Tech
Long story short, I'll watch & vote for your K aff if you do the work to provide me with an advocacy statement/Plan w/ kritikal advantages & solvency throughout. This means that off-case Ks should meet the same burden. A caveat: Treat your K alt like a CP. At the moment you introduce the alternative, your neg presumption disappears - I want to hear reasons to prefer why the alt solves vs whatever Aff is running. In-round links for any Ks are excellent offense & performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you*.
Theories of power/authors I'm quite familiar with: Black humanist scholarship (Wilderson, S. Hartman, Z. Jackson, Fanon), poststructuralism/biopower (Derrida, Foucault), feminist scholarship (Anzaldua, Haraway), set col (Burkhart, Mignolo, Tuck & Yang).
*I will listen to most any theory of power that challenges the normative structures that govern debate, so long as you do the footwork to show how said structures are upheld in the current round (in-round links), how they have fostered exclusion in debate (uniqueness), & how your model is key to changing the state of debate (solvency).
Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)
For many of the debates I judge, this is likely where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered. Let's talk:
- Plans/CPs/Perms: I love a good permutation debate any day. CPs are excellent; however, the moment Neg introduces the CP, they also give up presumption. Sound familiar? At that point, the debate shifts & Neg must solve - the funniest & most effective arguments to me were those in which CP connected to the DA.
- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. I would strongly prefer if Aff runs their generic "PICs Bad" theory blocks against this.
- Impact Calc: I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, & solvency. Something I liked to do as a competitor (because...petty) was making 'drops' a voter. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Your ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. I always commend excellent round vision in rebuttals.
- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language (non-uniques, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will immediately perk up & you will notice. Offense over defense any day. And yes, this applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.
- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.
- Solvency is the real homie in any debate.
- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.
FW/Topicality debates are excellent, so long as there is clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violation). I will consider your procedural impacts; however, I will expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation. You'll have better luck with making more offensive arguments through providing a fire counter-interpretation, some counter-standards, &...please no RVIs, ok? Ok.
[Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR. Trichot is a cool argument too.
My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, outspreading your opponents can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you cool with spreading?"
However, this position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:
[Policy/TOC LD] Go fast. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.
[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.
[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow along if you're just a naturally fast speaker. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading - find it, navigate it.
Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.
(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....
1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.
2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.
4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.
1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .
2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !
3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *
My email is email@example.com
Competed in CX Debate as recent as last year at Kennedale High School. Just recently began judging to fulfill my passion for debate.
There are many paths to victory when it comes to CX, you decide which one you take. Debate in whatever style you feel most confident in, just make sure your arguments are clear and flowable.
I'm open to all arguments but I believe that stock issues should be answered for first before going into other territories.
I highly encourage clashing, just don't be a jerk.
I believe that it's important for a speaker to be knowledgeable on what they're reading and be able to explain what a card means in their own words, if you can't, you probably shouldn't be arguing it.
As far as speed goes, remember that quality > quantity. I won't penalize you for going too fast but I might ask you to slow down for better understanding.
Debates are won in rebuttals, this is where you'll create your path to victory and I will weigh out the round.
Feel free to ask me any questions!
I am a parent judge with 3 years of experience.
I expect the participants to speak slow and clearly
Respect other participants
EMAIL (LD, POLICY): firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
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 email@example.com
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.
HIII :) my name is siya (she/her) and I’m a senior at coppell high school in texas! i debated in both Lincoln-Douglas debate and world schools debate
add me onto the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
please respect your opponent—any offensive or discriminatory behavior docks your speaks/a loss before my intervention :) def message me before the round /shoot me a private message if you want my help in creating a safe space during the round. debate is a wonderful activity and your safety is my concern :) please message me after the round if you had any concerns.
unless it's super obscure criticism/phil literature, feel free to run anything! i'm most comfortable with policy/trad arguments but ill vote off anything.
write my ballot for me with concise voting issues and lots of impact calc in your last speech.
im good with speed as long as there's a doc for everyone in the round.
hey novices: focus on flowing well! don't drop any arguments
GOOD LUCK YOU GUYS GOT THIS EMANATE CONFIDENCE WOO and most importantly- have fun!
my email- email@example.com
pls put me on the email chain!
top level stuff- don’t make any racist/sexist/problematic args
be kind & have fun
Hey I'm Kathy!
junior at mercer island hs, 5x TOC bid, currently ranked #11 nationally for LD
I mainly debate LD and know janfeb and march/april topic lit
General things that are cool to do:
- Signpost where you're refuting
- make sure to extend your voters!!!!!! ie if you want to go for and win on an argument, briefly mention and explain what it is in your speeches
- if you're reading different fws, engage them or collapse
- Weigh! your! voters!! especially explain why they matter more than your opp's
- time yourselves and if it goes off try to speedy it up bc we can hear when your timer goes
overall I'm pretty much good to evaluate anything so debate what you want!
*note for novice- if you wanna run progressive args or spread or whatever, feel free to go for it but please research the position first make sure your opponent is fine with it!
generally the same as the LD paradigm minus stuff about fw, etc
also engage your warrants w your opponents, especially if you're running the same arguments!
daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir
So who is this random guy?
Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)
*PF stuff at the bottom
(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2
Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)
Read bold if you have 5 min before round
Good news: My younger sister is starting middle school debate, so for the first time ever… I’m kind of a quasi-coach.
Bad news: I’m now writing for the Arkansas Razorback affiliate for Sports Illustrated. This means I judge whenever my publisher gives me a weekend off, which is like once in a blue moon.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like captain obvious in that Hotels.com commercial, but say what needs to be said to win the debate. If your 5-minute overview wins the debate, how can I fault you for reading it?
EXPLAIN JARGON! TOP of the NR/2ar should write the ballot for me, slow down, and really emphasize WHY you're winning this debate.
Speed is fine(a little-known fact about me, my fine motor skills aren’t the best due to, well reasons, so if there’s a long TAG, hold your horses and let my hand catch up, yes looking at you K debaters). GO SLOW ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES and on the T debate
No RVI's!(like literally unless the neg reads a million T/Theory shells) That means don't spend 30 seconds of the 1ar reading an RVI, and 2ns STOP spending 2 minutes answering it. I promise I will be as unbiased as humanly possible in every other aspect of the debate. Let me have this one thing. Thanks! If you like to give a 3-minute RVI 2ar on a regular basis PLEASE strike me!
Analytics, send em. thanks. It's beneficial online, you never know when your audio is going to cut out for a split sec, also it's just better for accessibility. No, I'm not interested in publishing your analytics to the internet or sending it around the circuit to screw with you...
A quick word on speaker points: I think they are the worst form of judge intervention possible. My definition of the best debater ever or being "on the bubble" is wildly different than the judge for your next round and the round after that. Both debaters start at 30. Don't be mean. Don't come into the round looking to pick a fight with someone and you should be able to keep that 30.
I don’t care what debate looks like, it’s just that I only understand certain kinds of debate and thus can only (correctly) judge those kinds of debate. If you are comfortable with an incorrect decision, feel free to stop reading and pref me a 1. I would love to say that I have experience with all types of arguments and I’ve spent the last 5 years of my life obsessively cutting cards and reading literature every spare moment I get, the reality is I didn’t. NOT obsessively worrying about the latest development on whatever topic it is for that weekend. As you’ll see down below though, I have done debate before.
*below is how I feel about certain args and how I debated, please don’t be discouraged in running a certain argument based on the info below… I have biases/preferences, we all do, any judge that tells you otherwise is lying.
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality Bad
Politics DA is a thing-x----------------------------Politics DA is not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------x------------Link matters most
Try or die----x-------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption--------------------x------------------ No presumption
Resting grumpy face----------x-------------------Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------x----plz don't
Disclosure Theory-----------------------------x--------------Shut up and deal with it
(Creds to Buntin)
Other Random Stuff and rants
I will not stop a debate just because your opponent has read an author you don't like
I will not vote off anything that breaks the structure of the debate-(ie, speech times don't exist)
False accusations of Racism and Sexism are just as bad as Racism and Sexism itself
That being said... If you feel uncomfortable during a debate, PLEASE say something
role of the ballot = roll of the eyes
Card Dumps are bad. Quality>Quanity PLEASE, I'm BEGGING YOU
keep your own time
extreme clarity when cross applying is key
You have prep. Use it.
Again, Have fun!
PF- Claim Warrant Impact, just like all other debates. I'm about as progressive as they come. 98% of the time I judge LD. That means I have tolerance for speed, plans, CPs, K's, and the whole nine yards. It also means that I have the same evidence standards as your typical circuit LD judge. Paraphrasing does not exist*. Read the card like an LD case if you want me to flow the author names. Otherwise, you are out of luck, Read the card. Send the card. Be as clean as a whistle when asked for the card.
*If it's novice, I'm far more lenient. Have fun.
[previous experience: 1-4 at new york states novice year, 2-3 at pennsbury 2022, forfeited 2 rounds at gds 2022, jv urban debate dragon CHAMPION and TOP speaker 2021] IF THAT MATTERS TO YOU!!!!! ONLY IF THAT MATTERS TO YOU!!!
in a sea of finance bros, there i am: a girlboss waiting to sell her soul to capitalism.
i am an irrational actor and prone to miscalc (woman)
email chain -- samsiegeldebate[AT]gmail[DOT]com
sorry about putting [AT] and [DOT] i started getting random spam emails i realize it’s annoying
also feel free to ask questions before/after the round via email, im happy to answer!
if you read anything but baudrillard i will [insert threat here]
i judge based on vibes only. my ballot is written after the 2nc - i tune into your vibe and decide whos cool and whos not
prioritize your safety over debate. i’m a resource if you need anything at all—going to tab, dealing w hurtful opponents/judges—feel free to reach out any time for anything you need.
the above is essentially stolen but very true! (thx sean) (”idk if i want my stuff in such an L persons paradigm”)
please do not judge adapt to what this paradigm says. i have preferences for my personal debating and enjoyment but i will listen to whatever you have worked on and you shouldn’t change your strategy and throw away your hard work for this round because of my paradigm. my preferences will not impact your speaker points or wins in front of me.
just debate and i'll just judge. i am a tabula rasa judge to the best of my ability.
don't be mean, you don't need to humiliate your opponent to show me you're right
most of everything everyone (with some exceptions) says on their paradigm is either dumb or not true so u can stop reading here if u want
trigger warnings are NOT optional and you need to provide a way to anonymously opt out of potentially triggering things - if you don’t i will vote on even the worst version of tw theory. i might even just vote you down if i get annoyed enough idc. imo you should be sending out a google form with an anonymous way to opt out before the round
have fun :)
you're novices/middle schoolers and i appreciate you being here! don't let yourself get overwhelmed, it's just debate at the end of the day!
you can post-round me if you disagree - not in a rude way but if you think i was wrong and want to tell me where you disagree and ask why i decided the way i did i don't mind!
novice debates should:
be centered around education (you're here to become better debaters)
try to trick opponents
i'm fine for anything
i think Ks and K AFFs are probably cheating but i just dont care. i find framework debates boring but ill vote for it
shockingly i'm a big theory/T(vs. policy affs) fan so don't feel afraid of going for that in front of me
will default to infinite condo and judge kick
anything you do is okay until you lose that it's not - e.g. theory stuff, inserting rehighlightings
debate is a game and if stealing prep is how you play then do your thing. but don't get caught you guys are dumb
if you can go for a non-uq disad (2020 elections) in the 2NR i'll give you 30 speaks
debate shapes subjectivities but doesnt create karl roves
for high speaks:
joke about mamaroneck debaters/coaches
tell me you read my paradigm by saying/typing the secret password: "sam you're the best judge i've ever had"
nicki minaj reference, telling me your favorite nicki song
give me a music recommendation before the round so i can listen while i write the ballot
a really clever/good cx question will always make me happy
tell me your debate hot take!
**note: you should be kind to your opponents. jokes in cx, before/after the round, or in speeches are appreciated and will make us all have a better time. if everyone in the round can be funny, kind, and friendly, i will be much more favorable to high speaks and you will feel better about yourself/your rounds at the end of the day
things that will get you an L + 25
sexism/racism/ableism/transphobia/xenophobia or anything else that's offensive
advantage counterplans with 4+ conditional planks that arent specific to the aff at all (boo)
wearing among us clothes
people i agree with/am influenced by(i dont necessarily agree with all of their takes but these people are the ones who have influenced me in debate the most and will probably impact the way i evaluate a round regardless of the content)
aka paradigm reading list if you so desire
people i do not agree with
and a myriad of umich debaters
My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a student at the University of Ilorin and I am a debater with speaking and judging experience in British Parliamentary (BP) and World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC) styles. I look forward to participating in other intriguing formats moving forward.
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: I do not have any.
One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.
It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.
I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.
Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.
Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:
Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.
All the best!
I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.
I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.
I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.
I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.
I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.
I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.
Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail. Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.
Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).
I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.
I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.
Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.
My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.
This paradigm is a constant work in progress.
Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.
If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.
Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.
Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.
If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.
Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.
I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.
I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.
Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.
Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.
I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.
If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.
If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.
I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.
2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.
The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.
The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.
Specific Speech Thoughts:
I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.
Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.
Global (all speeches):
- I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.
- Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.
- Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.
- The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.
- It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.
- Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.
- If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.
- You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.
- First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.
- Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.
- Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.
- The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.
- Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.
2NR & 2AR
- Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.
- I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.
- And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.
- Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.
- I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.
- I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."
- I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.
- Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.
- Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!
Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.
The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.
Adapted from a fellow coworker:
- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.
- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.
- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.
- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.
-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.
-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.
-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.
-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.
-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.
-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.
-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.
-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.
-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)
I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.
No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.
e-mail chain: [temporarily redacted]@gmail.com
Heyyyy, I’m Eli! I debated for Brooklyn Tech and currently debate for Binghamton University.
Top of the line: I view everything through ethos, and/or the lack of it (this hurts you). I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond the technicalities and jargon of a space that’s often rooted in academic isolation.
Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.
T/Framework: I don’t think all frameworks are bad. I think there are ways in which you can run a procedural as a proper methodology to contest the aff’s solvency mechanism. So, T-USFG: that’s fine (sometimes convincing), and I think frameworks that are about materiality and embodiment are good, valid, and the best.
CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).
I like Critical CPs.
DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA being a takeout to the aff's solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care..
Aff: It honestly depends on the type of aff and the subject position defended by the 1AC (assuming there is a defense). There needs to be a link to the resolution in some way for me. If not, then you need to clearly defend why an anti-resolutional stasis point is net better for engagement. POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts.Identity Based-Aff's: to win my ballot, you have to win that your methodology is grounded in alleviating the structural violence faced by the bodies you speak of (as opposed to being an 8-minute FYI).
Affs I’m more inclined to: Black feminism, anti-Blackness, queer/transness, ableism/disability.
Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong ethos in order to properly evaluate the impacts of the K. Judge instruction is key because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to (unless told otherwise) Examples and analogies would be best for a pomo round. Identity-based Ks: I’m probably familiar with your literature, but I will not do the work for you.
Performance: It’s interesting. Similar to what I said about K-Affs, I need some type of link to the resolution. Also, know this: just because you think your art is cool or creative, does not make it new or good. It’s important to stay on point (no. 2 pencil) as there’s a higher threshold for how the kritik can actualize (in a round) due to its deviation from normative debate. So, make sure to be consistent in each speech- because your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Lastly, be strategic and use your 1AC to leverage the offense from the negative.
Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only using shells and apply it to the performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.
I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. I think this space is often missing on good humor. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.
Also, any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care.
Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down
I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.
I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.
Updated Mar 10, 2023 :)
If you have questions before or after round, ask in person or feel free to email me. My email is n(dot)velo2000(at)gmail(dot)com. Put me on the email chain!
K --------------x----- Policy
Speed for tags and analysis:
Slow ------------x------- Fast
Speed for the body of ev:
Slow -------------------x Fast
I have a BA in political science from the University of Kansas with a minor in philosophy (2021). I am pursuing a JD at the University of Kansas School of Law (2024).
I debated for Emporia HS in Emporia, KS ('14-'18: oceans, surveillance, China, education), and the University of Kansas ('18-'19: executive authority). I mostly read "soft-left" affs, though occasionally read traditional high-magnitude impact affs. Every aff I read defended USfg action. My 2NRs were a lot of T. Don't let the arguments I read determine what you read in front of me.
I try to judge when I can. Trends, community consensus, and topic knowledge are things that I am no longer up to date on. Given that the tournaments I judge are few and far between, my flowing abilities may not be where you'd like them.
Deviation from my paradigm =/= auto-loss, following it perfectly =/= auto-win. I can be convinced to evaluate the round by other means than those below. This paradigm applies to other forms of debate where applicable.
I generally don't make eye contact. It isn't personal. I promise I'm listening.
Top level: Non-Debatable Rules
Be nice - you have a duty to be respectful and ethical towards everyone in the round. This includes not making arguments that could have traumatic implications. A breach of said duty will be met by a punishment I deem proportional to the breach. If being otherwise unethical/hyper-aggressive is your strategy, strike me.
Speeches, CX, prep, winning, speaker points - each debater must give exactly one constructive speech and exactly one rebuttal for their team. Each debater must be available for CX after their constructive; open CX is fine. Speech and prep times are strict. Prep stops once the flashdrive goes into your computer or when you open your email. Compiling evidence into one doc is prep. Don't steal prep. Exactly one team will win. Info on speaker points below.
Filesharing - I would like speech docs. Speechdrop > email chain > flash drive. Microsoft Word documents preferred.
Online chat box - only has been an issue for middle school/novices. Don't abuse it.
Clipping - if you clip and I catch it, you get the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. If you clip and the other team catches it with a recording, I will award you a loss in addition to the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. Don't clip. If you need to stop reading a card before finishing it as indicated by the speech doc, you should say "mark the card at [last word you read]."
Tech > Truth - within reason, a dropped arg is a true arg if there is an extension, a warrant, and an implication.
Clarity > Speed - slow down for anything that isn't the text of a piece of evidence, especially if the argument isn't in the speech doc.
The less work there is for me to do at the end, the better.
No judge kicks unless its explicitly an option. Make it clear that I can judge kick before the 2NR. Conditionality is a prerequisite.
The neg should disprove the desirability or scholarship of the 1AC. I struggle to vote on things that happened before the start of the 1AC or after the end of the 2NR.
I tend to lean neg on framework vs affs that do not defend USfg action. Not an impossible for the aff to win, but much harder for the aff if the aff is not related to the topic.
I consider debate to be a game first and an educational forum second - fairness is an impact in and of itself.
Avoiding unnecessary suffering, including death, is good. Unnecessary suffering is bad and is an impact that does not require justification. Death/suffering good arguments are neither true nor ethical.
The aff should defend a hypothetical solution to a problem. That may mean a topical plan, an ethical orientation, or something else entirely.
The aff cannot sever out of of the advocacy described in the 1AC.
The content of the 1AC should be related to the resolution. Any aff that is not related to the resolution should be prepared to justify that decision.
Case defense alone is usually not enough to justify voting neg. Presumption doesn't exist absent a reason to actively reject the affirmative. There is generally a non-zero-percent risk the aff does something beneficial.
The 1NC should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a reason to vote neg. The block should give a topical version of the aff if there is one.
The standards debate should have a warrant (but preferably multiple). Saying "vote neg for limits and ground" is insufficient, and especially so in the 2NC/1NR. The block should explain how your interpretation resolves any alleged abuse, why non-topical affs and/or the 1AC advocacy damages limits and ground, and why limits and ground are good.
I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability has never meant that "our aff is a reasonable example of the topic," but has rather meant that "our interpretation of the topic is a reasonable one, so don't vote us down."
Absent clear, egregious abuse, T is not an RVI. If there's any uncertainty over whether that level of abuse is met, it probably hasn't been.
Generally open to "good faith" theory arguments, but "cheap-shots" will be held to a higher threshold.
Conditionality is usually good; it's up to the aff to tell me where to draw the line, if at all.
Failure to disclose usually does not justify rejecting a team or infinite conditionality.
The neg should ideally provide specific link evidence, or spin generic link evidence in a way that relates to the aff. Specific link/no link arguments are stronger than generic ones.
Impact overviews are nice. I think there is a lot of room for nuance in "DA outweighs and turns case" arguments. These arguments win rounds.
If you're reading a "cheating" CP, be prepared to defend the legitimacy of it.
CPs should compete through mutual exclusivity or through external net benefits. Internal net benefits are unpersuasive and lose to the permutation.
CPs should have texts that are specific and written in a similar format to the aff plan text.
If this is your bread and butter, I probably should not be your highest-ranked judge.
Framework debates (fiat not real, weigh impacts of aff vs K, etc.) are important and I like them but you have to slow down here. Here, the quality of your arguments heavily outweighs the quantity of them.
I think of speaker points as a way of grading your speech. To do so, I take the "grade" that I think you deserve, place a "2" in front of it, and move the decimal (ex: 75% = 27.5). In awarding speaker points, I consider both speech delivery and content. The standard for these scores changes with the tournament and division; novices at local tournaments will be held to lower standards than teams on the national circuit. The lowest score I have awarded is 26.5; the highest score I have awarded is 29.
30 = Perfect.
27.6 to 29.9 = Above average, there are likely one or more small issues you can improve on to get closer to a 30.
27.5 = Average.
25.1 to 27.6 = Below average, there are one or more major areas you can improve on.
25 = Well below average, there are many major areas that need improvement.
20 = You clipped your evidence, displayed egregious disrespect, or created another ethical issue in the round.
add me to the chain: email@example.com
read whatever you want just don't be offensive
pref short cut
1 - policy
1 - k
2 - t, theory
3 - phil
4 - trix
Max Wiessner (They/Them)
also please set one up ASAP... one of my biggest pet peeves is starting late bc we don't have emails and docs from people :' )
especially true for online tournaments: unless there is a performative value in not disclosing, you should share any carded evidence with everyone in the round (or at least your judge)
- note: disclosure standards are different for CHSSA tournaments
- Do NOT prioritize speed over clarity, be even clearer with your analytics.
any hateful/disrespectful language/actions geared towards other competitors (homophobia, racism, misogyny, antiblackness, etc.) or anything that is straight-up bigotry will reflect in your individual speaker scores and may affect my decision. if I find the issue to be excessive, as the judge, I reserve the right to end the round and have tab step in.
I’ve been debating policy at CSUF for 4 years, I recently took up IEs as well (poi, poetry, ads, and extemp). I have coached BP, PF, policy and LD.
I would consider myself a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have come to be fairly well-versed in traditional policy arguments as well as K arguments. I don't know everything though, so please be sure to thoroughly explain your arguments and theories of power.
If I’m in the back, just run whatever you’re most comfortable with! As long as you explain and impact it out, pretty much anything can be a voter for me. say it with your CHEST and your speaker points will be happy. I believe debate is intended to be a performance that allows us to articulate how we feel and a space to forward methods of survival or existence and alter subjectivities. (truth >tech)
"Education is elevation" -George Lee
please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. I’m looking for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round, not just a “we win on timeframe. We win on magnitude.”
I love a good counter plan as long as it is competitive and you can fully solve for the impacts of the AFF with some sort of net benefit. If you don't have a DA with ur CP, you need to go hard on the net benefit.
I love K arguments (I usually run arguments relating to set col, racial cap, migration, antiblackness, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best) Just please EXPLAIN your theory and all of its intricate details as if you assume I know nothing about it (because I might not). Also be clear about what the aff does, how it does it, who does it, etc. Sounds silly, but is often overlooked
Love them. As long as your performance is central to the aff, and you can explain to me why, I love to see it.
K on neg:
See above for general K stuff. As long as you have a good link and a good alt/action that you are proposing, go crazy.
FW v K’s:
I’m pretty split on these debates. Fairness isn’t an automatic voter to me, especially because the K team will probably just tell me that debate isn’t ever fair for [fill in the blank] and I’ll agree. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text. If you want to win on FW, you need to explain to me what’s missing from the K, what’s bad about their form of debate, or what the next harm is.
I have a high threshold for T. You need to be able to explain to me what the aff has done that has impacts that would outweigh their solvency, especially if the "non-topical" AFF proposed has a method that solves the harms that the topic intends to reach. Most of the FW stuff above applies here too.
Theory in LD:
I've recently become way more open to theory and am much more knowledgeable at least on the basics. I'm always interested to see what this looks like in rounds, but am not comfortable enough to guarantee I'm a great judge for this (yet)
Help protect food not bombs:
Houston FNB: https://houstonfoodnotbombs.org/
- you are a person outside of the debate... Please make me aware if you are uncomfortable either in the round or due to external factors so we can find a way to re-create a safe space
- I start everyone at a 27.5 and bump you up from there. It makes the most sense in my brain to go up with each speech as new args/iterations are presented. Scores usually average in the 28.2-29 range
- if they drop an argument, you need to tell me why to care. what's the impact? how does that reflect on their model of debate or their solvency or their [insert filler here]
- y'all please do not steal prep. Timer goes off, stop typing and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.
- Judge intervention is bad, one of my biggest pet peeves. I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, because that's what I'm looking at to decide my RFD. This also leads me to usually give pretty detailed RFDs where I will tell you what would've/could've got the ballot from me.
- double-majoring in Women & Gender Studies and Cinema & Television Arts with an emphasis in critique... meaning I study how theory applies to film, and how different people interpret and internalize apparent and subliminal messaging in film. I feel like this might be relevant to understanding my vibe/interest areas
- you can call me max instead of judge
- yellow is the worst highlight color. Pls *do not* feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow lol
Affiliation: Cleveland High School
TOC Conflict Notice: I am judging for Oak Ridge in LD. Cleveland High School, the only other conflict I could have, does not have any entries in TOC LD, so Oak Ridge is my only conflict at the tournament.
TOC LD Topic: For those of you reading cases about Israel/Palestine, you should know that I am affiliated with J Street. I spend a lot of time researching, organizing, and doing advocacy work on solving the conflict through an anti-occupation lens. I will evaluate your round on the flow and will do my best to not let my personal biases get in the way, but I wanted to disclose this upfront for transparency.
Put me on the email chain!: firstname.lastname@example.org
-2 years of experience in Policy Debate
-1.5 years of experience in Public Forum Debate
-0.5 years of experience in Parliamentary Debate
-Competed in Worlds Schools Debate at the 2020 and 2021 National Tournaments
Background: I am a sophomore at the University of Arizona pursuing a major in Political Science and a minor in Communication. I graduated from Cleveland High School in 2021 after competing on their speech and debate team for four years and serving as a captain for three years.
If you have any questions about anything in this paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask me! I am happy to clarify anything you want me to.
-PLEASE SIGNPOST YOUR ARGUMENTS! Tell me which argument you are on, tell me what you are responding to, and use numbered lists/some organizational structure to make it easier to follow.
-I am a flow judge. I will evaluate the round based on the flow and who wins their offense.
-I am a tech over truth judge.
-I will default to a framework of utilitarianism unless debaters propose a different framework.
-Theory is a priori. I will evaluate these arguments before all others.
-Kick out of positions and go for your strongest arguments.
-Weigh impacts throughout the round! Don’t save it all for the final speech!
-Extend your arguments, especially if they are dropped!
-You must tell me why your impacts outweigh -- impact framing is very important to me. Tell me why you win on magnitude, timeframe, or probability and why the one(s) you win on are most important. Additionally, quantify your impacts! It is much easier to evaluate a round where one team argues they can save 50,000 lives whereas the other team only saves 20,000 (you get the idea).
-I will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.) in any debate format (yes, even PF). Just be sure they are well-developed and adapted to the form (ex: if you read a K on neg in PF don’t read an alt because counter-advocacies aren’t allowed. Simple alts like reject the aff are okay.) Make sure your theory shells have the correct structure (interpretation, violation, standards, voters, maybe framing) and that your K’s are also properly structured.
-I am okay with spreading in any debate event (you probably shouldn’t do it in Parli though), but if you are going to spread, send a speech doc and make sure it is in order so everyone can follow along. Remember that some debaters are not familiar with spreading, keep it fair for them!
-I view debate as a game with an educational net benefit. I also believe the point of debate is education.
-This is your round, I’m just here to evaluate it. I may have my opinions on debate and how it should work but I will let y’all do your thing and evaluate based on what happens.
-This is the debate form I did in my senior year and had the most success in.
-Paraphrasing evidence is okay, but I really prefer to hear direct quotes from cards. If a team asks for a card, don’t just send the link to the evidence. Send an actual cut card with the parts you referenced/read highlighted. Also, make sure it is cited!
-Try not to completely discard the flow in the summary speeches. It is okay to talk about big picture themes in the round, but you really should address the line-by-line, or I will count it as a drop of the other team’s arguments.
-In the final focus, you should explain why you win your strongest arguments, why the impact outweighs, and why you counter the other team’s offense. Try to boil the round down to the most important points while telling a story in this speech. Side note: you also probably shouldn’t be going for every position you started out with in your constructive.
-I don’t have a ton of LD experience but I understand how the value/criterion debates work and I have general knowledge about the format.
-Be sure to prioritize the framework debate in LD as it is way more important than other forms, but don’t neglect winning offense on the flow.
-Explain your philosophy -- odds are I do not understand it. I am happy to evaluate it, but just explain it to me like I do not understand. This way we will all stay on the same page.
-Go as fast as you want, just send a speech doc.
-Speech docs are so so so important!!! If you’re going to send a speech doc, please please please put things in order and keep it organized!!! The doc loses its value if you only read half of what is in it and jump around to different parts. Please do your best to avoid this. I will penalize speaks for this. This is really my only major debate pet peeve.
-Much like above, kick out of positions, win the flow, stay organized, don’t drop things.
-I am happy to evaluate K or non-topical affs, just explain everything. You are probably going to need a good T response, though.
-A note on T: It is a staple of the CX neg strategy and good to have in your toolbox, especially against affs you may not have much prepped out on. Use it. If you’re on neg, you must argue why I should evaluate T under competing interpretations and make sure you are winning your interpretation, standards, and voters.
-Another note on Ks: I am most familiar with cap K lit and loosely familiar with SetCol, Security, and Afropessimism/anti-Blackness lit. Whatever your lit is, please explain it and make sure you have a solid link. If you are going to read arguments about identity in rounds, please be respectful of all debaters and people in the round and beyond. Do it consciously with good intentions. Don’t leverage someone’s identity and experiences just to win a debate round. Think about this when you are prepping your cases.
-Kicking the alt of a K and just going for the link and impact is genius and something I wish I had done more…..
-I don’t have much to add here. Theory is okay, so are Ks. Contentions/ADVs/DVs/CPs are great, too. Parli is a lot of fun so just do your thing. I feel what I have written about other debate forms and at the top generally applies here.
TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.
Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.
Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.
CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.
I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.
Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.
Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.
I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.
Most arguments are fine.
If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.
The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.
Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.
SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.
Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.
I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!
I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.
I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.
If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.
add me to the chain: email@example.com
background: I've done policy debate for all of high school, 2A/1N
speed is fine, just be clear.
tech > truth (if you drop something, it's true), but tell me why something they dropped matters, and interact with the other team's warrants. The rebuttals should frame my ballot.
read whatever you want just don't be offensive.
PF/LD - pls time yourselves & explain terms of art/topic language since i'm not familiar w/ these events. I'm also fine with k's/"progressive" args.
LD - explain why winning you win under your value/VC in rebuttals. unfamiliar with tricks/phil so overexplain pls