DOWLING CATHOLIC PARADIGM
2022 — WEST DES MOINES, IA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, mostly on the circuit. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone in the round before case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I am not asking for a speech doc to flow off of --I'm asking for it so you can see if evidence is being misconstrued without wasting time. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.
I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.
You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.
Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.
I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity.
Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.
The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win off of for best results.
The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.
Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average a 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.
I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.
I don't mind K debate generally, but I have a really high threshold for what a K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but not a ton. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF, if your interp doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy responses and forget to actually warrant arguments. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well.
Feel free to email or message me with any questions you have about the round!
Contact info: email@example.com
Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year.
I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.
General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.
High theory: 1
K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.
Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.
LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.
Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.
Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.
Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.
Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.
parent judge no experience in debate, not english first language
I'm here to help y'all try out whatever strategies and arguments you want (within reason of course). I want everyone to have a good time and learn a ton while at camp, so my main goal is to provide you with thorough feedback and analysis of the round. I will judge the debate you want to have, although I strongly prefer debates about the topic and debates that adhere to all the thoughts I have below. Most importantly, have fun and ask questions after the round if you have any. Also, PLEASE follow the PFBC standards on evidence, disclosure, etc.
email: firstname.lastname@example.org & email@example.com (please add both to the email chain)
also please title the email chain using the format "Round X Flight A/B, Tournament Name, School XX Aff/Neg 1 vs School YY Aff/Neg 2"
- PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
- Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
- Instructor for Potomac Debate, 2021-Present
- University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
- Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019
Updated for April 2023:
Generally, I will vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over (as long as the tournament allows it). I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one big issue with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.
if you're speed reading this before round, prioritize the pet peeves & evidence issues sections (and the kritiks & theory sections if that's a thing you plan to do)
Online Debate Specific:
- Go a little slower than you normally would.
- Record all of your speeches. I won't let you redo a speech if someone's audio gets cut off or computer crashes. If that happens, continue giving the speech and send the recording to everyone in the round.
- I will be annoyed if you're late to an online round.
- I will judge the debate you want to have, but like, be smart about it.
- The only time you need a trigger warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
- I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
- Speed is fine as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Like I said earlier though, I prefer slower rounds.
- Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.
- Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes. Paraphrasing is bad. I'm almost always going to vote for paraphrasing bad if it's an argument that's made in the round.
- Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. For some reason, me writing this in my paradigm has resulted in teams sending their docs to me privately, which is not the point. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that we don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
- Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc with exactly what you said in the debate.
- I despise Google Docs - if you use Google Docs to write your cases, that's fine, but just download the doc as a Word Document and send it to the email chain instead of sending a link or sharing the doc. Similarly, I dislike when teams use a shared Google Doc for evidence sharing instead of just sending docs. You need to share evidence with your opponents in a way that guarantees you're not able to edit the doc after sending it.
- It shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds to locate a card, and if it takes more than 2 minutes, I’ll strike it from the flow and start dropping your speaker points.
- The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
- Evidence comparison is super underutilized in PF - I'd love to hear more of it.
- My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams will well cut, quality evidence.
- I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
- Put me on the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org).
- Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. I’m more lenient with defense, but you should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for.
- Defense isn’t sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
- Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
- Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is even better. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
- Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
- The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:
- Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad.
- I probably should tell you that I generally believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
- Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
- “Our coach didn’t teach us how to respond to theory” is not an argument. Same with “our coach doesn’t let us disclose” if there’s no proof that’s true. It's just an argument; answer it the same way you would arguments on the topic.
- "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are also not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
- Refer to the pet peeves section of my paradigm - a lot of those bullet points were added after watching bad theory rounds.
- A counter interpretation is not an RVI. RVIs are a completely separate part of the debate.
I’ve also seen a ton of terrible K debates. I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.
- You need to solve or do something. If I have no idea what voting for you means, then you do not have offense. Reading a K does not excuse you from having to organize/structure your speeches in the same way you would in a traditional round. "Creating discourse about structural violence" is not sufficient solvency.
- I also need you to walk through the links pretty extensively. If it’s a topical argument, I want to hear exactly how you link into it. If it’s critiquing the debate space, then I want to hear exactly what the problem is and how your argument solves it. You get the point, just be thorough.
- When extending the K, don't just reread the entire thing.
- I've heard a lot of K teams get upset when other teams actually answer their arguments. You should only be reading a K if you're prepared for actual K debate.
- I can tell when you just grab something off the LD or Policy wiki without doing any of your own card cutting or editing. Probably don't do that. Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself.
- If your argument is just "vote for me because I am x identity" or "vote for me because I talk about x issue" or "if you don't vote for me you don't care about x oppression" or "if you really cared about x issue you would concede the round and have a discussion," you will probably lose.
- I'm not familiar with most K lit. I've done some reading, but it was either for college NPDA or just for fun. If I was you, I'd assume I know nothing and over explain rather than under explain.
- I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
- I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
- Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
- I don't really want to vote on a blippy turn from rebuttal that you blow up in the second half that all of a sudden has evidence, warrants, impacts, and link-ins that weren't there before.
- The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
- The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
- Most of the time, an IVI is just an argument. You don't need to treat it differently than anything else. For me this is just the wrong way to deal with the issues that provoke most IVIs.
- If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.
I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:
- I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.
- I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
- If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.
If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at email@example.com.
Add me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hey y'all! My name is Zach Harnden, and I did Public Forum debate at Dowling Catholic High School. I have won 4 state titles, qualified to National Tournament 3 times, and I now debate for Simpson College in Parlimentary Debate and Public Forum. I am majoring in Political Science and minoring and Economics. I love football, fishing, and Arnold Palmer.
TLDR; Debate should be fun and educational. If it's neither of those, I probably won't be engaged.
-I’m good with both lay and tech.
-If your evidence is important to my decision, I'll ask for it, but otherwise, just don’t paraphrase
-Keep track of your own time, if you abuse it, I’ll doc you.
Theory: I never ran it, and I'd probably prefer you debate the topic. But hell, if you think there is an egregious violation of your rights going on in the debate, then you'd better be running or at least mentioning theory.
Online: IDC about cameras, just make sure I can hear you. My camera will be off, and I will be flowing. I am ready, so don’t ask. :)
I’ll give the most speaks to the best speaker, but if that’s not good enough for ya, then here:
If you make proper and funny references to any of the following I will give you auto 30 speaks.
-Roasting Christopher Pierson
if you don't use any prep
Email chain/ questions: email@example.com
As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand
arguments in order that i am comfy with them are
i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something
I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.
Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you
If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.
Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.
Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.
Arguments that I am comfortable with:
Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.
I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.
I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.
i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.
debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand
I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.
Some preference below:
- Analytical, logical and evidence.
- Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
- Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
- Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
- Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.
Hello Debaters, I debated four years of public forum at Eagan High School in Minnesota. Now I'm a coach for Iowa City West High School. During my time debating, I was both of first and second speaker, but enjoyed being second the most.
I don't want a messy round, and you don't want me to have to find a winner once the round is over, so here is how I want rounds to go:
As a broad overview, I strongly believe that the heart of PF debate is a round in which a random person should be able to come off the street, judge, and be able to provide a decent explanation of who won and why. As a result of that, I will attempt to judge that style as much as I can. I want to see clear linkchains read throughout the round and explained counterargs to what the other team says. Taking the time to slow down and explain your args and how they impact the round overall will be a lot better then just card dumping and seeing what sticks.
Overall, lean closer to lay appeal than tech, and drive home the 2-3 key points you need to win. As for some other random stuff here's this:
I absolutely think cross-fire is the most undervalued and unappreciated part of the round. I love cross-fire. If you use it to good effect and carry it throughout the round, it could be a deciding factor for me.
If key evidence is contested throughout the round or one of the teams ask that I review it, I may call to see it at the end of round.
If we are online, use firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains: I'll only look at it if there is an issue post-round, but let's have someone set one up before round in case it's needed.
I will flow whatever you say. Run whatever you want, and I will weigh it in round. One thing to note, I have never been able to flow sources well, so please don't just say the name of the card, remind me what the card or block says. If you are dropping an arg/contention/etc, clearly let me know so I know you are trying to make a strategic decision and not just forgetting about it. Don't try to drop a something to get out of a turn though, that's still offense for the other team.
If I catch it, I will flow it. One thing to note, I'm not that fast of a writer, so if you spread, I will not catch it.
Like I mentioned above, I want to see clear linkchains. Ideally, you have a super logical linkchain that's flowed throughout the round. I'm far more likely to pick a clean linkchain with a small impact then a linkchain that requires a lot of steps to get to nuclear war.
I'm sure you have heard it all before, so not much to say, only that cross will be the fastest way to gain or lose points on my watch.
Like I said before, I will flow whatever you say. Be warned though that I don't like them and I have a super low bar that your opponents need to clear to beat it. The only thing I'm a lot more understanding for is in-round evidence issues or clear rule violations.
If you are confused by what the other team is saying, assume I am also confused, so ask them about it.
Please do an off-time roadmap
I do plan on disclosing at the end of round
I am the worse with technology, so give me a second, then maybe one more :)
If we are online, and there is an issue with hearing your opponents, please speak up
Please time yourself
If you have any questions just ask. Good luck, have fun and make some good memories.
Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.
I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.
Speed: I don't like speed. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused. Either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.
Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.
I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.
You should stand when speaking. It is not something that will impact your perception or speaker points, but research shows that you speak better when you stand up. Since this is a speaking activity, you should want to maximize your ability to speak well.
Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.
Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.
If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.
If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.
If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.
On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.
Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.
Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.
I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college
I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)
I debated public forum all through high school and have done LD and Parli for two years now in college. I am familiar with technical debate from simple T-shells all the way up to Debate Ks. I can also evaluate on the surface level of standard cost/benefit analysis.
Winning my Ballot
Weighing mechanism and impacts are important for me. Tell me what I should vote on and why that means I should vote for you. this includes T and theory. I will not vote on those, if you don't tell me why they matter in the round. You can win on abstract weighing, such as mode of thought arguments, but you need to explain why they're bad. I am a heavy flow debater, so I appreciate sign posting and structure. Ink on the flow is important, dropping arguments can make it very hard to win.
Also if you argue nuke war, hope your opponent doesn't question it, because I am highly skeptical of claims that anything is going to lead to a nuclear apocalypse. Along with that, if you say something that is manifestly untrue, it's going to be very easy for your opponent to beat the claim ex. saying that State governments are the same as the federal government.
Overview - I love LD, but Public forum is a different style. Speeding, Theory and K should be kept in LD and policy, so PF remains accessible. That means that everything I'm about to say doesn't apply to PF. For PF, be much more conversational and avoid shells of any variety, unless you really need to.
Ks - I love Ks and am very familiar with the literature, particularly for Cap Ks. The flipside of that is if you do not actually understand your Ks, I will be able to tell. Please know the ins and outs of your K. Identity Ks should only be run if 1. there is genuine discriminatory language and 2. you've asked your opponent not to use the language and they refused. If your opponent misgenders you once, you don't correct them, and then you run a K, I'm going to vote you down for leveraging your identity to win the round. Please give your opponents the opportunity to correct themselves, it is very important. I'm also not very fond of Aff Ks and will be very receptive to a theory argument against you.
Theory - As above, I will vote on theory above anything else, you just have to explain why I should. I also will not vote for a T or Theory if you can't prove abuse. Not necessarily in-round abuse, but I need you to show me something. Disclosure theory in particular is unpersuasive to me, I've been very successful in LD debate with very little use of the Wiki, so I'm skeptical that it's abusive.
T - I will primarily evaluate T-shells based on interpretations, so make sure you have a good reason why I should prefer yours. Also don't forget impacts. If you prove your opponent breaks a rule, but not that it caused any problems, why is it a rule I should follow?
The primary purpose of debate is education and competition. If you're being rude to your opponent in anyway- either doing any "isms" or just general rudeness -your speaker points will suffer. Be respectful. Be intelligent. And most of all be cool!
Initially, I expect students to be well-prepared, thorough, and articulate. I expect students to utilize reliable, recent, and relevant sources to the arguments that they are presenting.
Second, I encourage students to provide clash by directly responding to their opponent's case. Clash is extremely important. Clash on the framework/criterion debate is absolutely essential! Put yourself in the best position to succeed by including a framework. If not, I will weigh the debate using my own discretion rather than a judging mechanism provided by your side. Please explicitly state this criterion at the start of the debate AND continue to discuss it throughout the course of the debate.
Thirdly, impacts truly matter. Explain why the arguments that you're making are important. Why should economic stability be preferred over foreign aid? Give good justification for why your impacts have more weight than your opposition. This is absolutely essential to get my vote.
Fourth, this community is centered around inclusivity and providing each student with an opportunity to speak. Please do not speed. This can be EXTREMELY exclusive and prevent your judges/opponents from hearing your arguments. This can disproportionately impact certain individuals. This activity prides itself on dialogue, but spreading/speeding reduces the chance of having a solid debate. If you do speed, I will listen, however, if I miss something, that is on you. I will not evaluate arguments that are not on the flow. Finally, if your opponent says clear and you do not slow down, I will put my pen down until you slow down.
Lastly, I am good with tech. You can run any argument with me. I love hearing K's, topicalities, or any unique arguments, but I need you to explain why it is important. Make all arguments accessible to your judges AND your opponents.
I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach and study poli sci and IR. I'm a very average flow judge.
read a content warning if you are graphically depicting something intense
add me to the email chain email@example.com
I look to framework, then weighing to see where to vote. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do that though. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. Strong defense is important to me.
Flip and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to the room
Don't shake my hand, plz pre flow before the round, -.5 speaks if you don't do either of these :)
Speed: I can keep up a good amount but I don't really want to. Spreading/reading 4 contentions is a straight-up annoying strategy, don't rely on lame stuff to get a leg up on your opponents. Make accommodations if your opponents ask you to, this includes not going fast. I don't really want to follow along on a speech doc.
Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no. (note: cards can be abused, if your opponents string together words and phrases to make a new argument or add words, that is a legitimate reason for me to strike it from the flow)
You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy responses on my flow, and I shouldn't have to. Explain your arguments.
I'll dock speaks if you prep steal, plz call out opponents politely for doing this
General Preferences of Arguments
quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)
Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides weighing (that's not new in 2nd ff)
I don't like disads, read turns. I like turns.
I love tons of warranting and smart analytics. I love good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff and making up good arguments on the fly that you can defend well.
I love when you make things on the flow interact with each other, so comparative weighing, conceding a delink to get out of turns, their nonunique on our case takes out a different argument they make, etc.
Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!
I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates. Slow down, I have a hard time properly flowing and evaluating these less familiar args. I require sending speech docs for these.
If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory, but prob not the way you'd like me to. I'm kind of familiar with K's but tbh I’m biased towards substance, those are the rounds I want to judge unless one team's being horrible.
Speaks:I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. Just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine
Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.
2018-2022: Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School
2023-Present: NFA-LD at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln [Nuclear Posture]
2022: Lab Instructor at NDF
2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School
The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and an anonymous opt-out with a backup case or contention.
I am normally tech over truth. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.
I don't have preference for how we do evidence sharing. If we're doing an email chain, teams should start it as soon as they get into the round. The subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add BOTH firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com to the email chain. If you are using an email that restricts you from sending to external emails then please use SpeechDrop.
Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.
Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.
Cross: I don’t flow or really listen to cross. I’m usually browsing the internet or shutting my brain off. If you want to bring something from cross, mention it in your speech.
Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.
Speed: Generally I will be fine with whatever as long as I can understand you and flow. However, I can only understand so much. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear. I’ll just stop flowing if you keep going too fast and you might not be very happy.
This is where you might consider striking me, I'd much rather hear a round that's with substance, but here are my thoughts:
1) Theory: I'm semi-familiar with theory, but running theory in front of me is risky as I have a very high threshold for it, especially in PF. I didn’t really debate or run theory often, so I’m probably not the best evaluator of it. I'll flow it, just don't be surprised if I don't consider it too heavily in my decision.
2) K's/Critical Arguments: I have limited experience listening to and judging K’s in LD. I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. You're probably better off trying to avoid running them in front of me since I'm very hesitant with my ability to evaluate them.
I have judged high school LD for a couple of tournaments, but don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I never competed in LD nor do I judge the event frequently.
Defer to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more trad LD, so that’s what I’m most familiar with. However, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. My threshold for progressive arguments in LD is a bit lower than it is for PF. Again, if I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.
If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I would be happy to answer them.
More About Me:
1) 2x NSDA Qualifier
2) Gold TOC Qualifier
3) 2022 Nebraska State Champion in PF
4) 2022 William Woods Tate, Jr., National Student of the Year Finalist
Please include me on the email chain- @email@example.com
I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge. If you go fast, please make sure you repeat the point multiple times. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me only your best argument(s) and then weigh the opposing arguments for me. Assuming your opponent's argument is sound, why should I weigh yours as more important?
Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and assistant debate coach for our PF teams.
Email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions and turns; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; FF should be clear voters; best to leave theory, Ks, etc outside of PF unless warranted; be thorough and nice = high speaks.
Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the card during your extension.
Final Focus: Tell me why you've won! But it should be supported with your work in your rebuttal and summary. If you tell me to vote on an issue, make sure you have won that issue.
Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, but will not dock you for it and will still accept it. However, if myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. I will say "slow" or "clear". Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading as well.
Theory, Ks, etc: Have experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in PF but if there is a reason to run it, go for it. If you make a warranted argument, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it.
Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.
I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.
I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.
Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.
Competed in Pf Junior and Senior year as well as some Policy in SD
Okay with speed as long as you’re not cutting corners in explanations, please slow down when naming cards/warrants or impacts and make sure your opponents are okay with speed as well
Spreading on your opponents to the point that they can't keep up is just plain rude, however I do like speed so please just ask if everyone is okay with it
Impact Calc/Weighing is important
ANY DROPPED TURNS WILL BE WEIGHED HEAVY
Please be respectful to your opponents
Question: What are the Curds doing?
Answer: "The Curds are just being curds"
Big fan of "off the road quick maps"
PLUS .1 speaks for any CBUM/Ronnie Coleman references (must be good tho)
not a fan of nuclear extinction debates- Im interested in hearing how nuclear tensions rising creates further impacts but not in how Putin waking up on the wrong side of the bed leads to global human extinction
Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted. Don't yell at, demean, or belittle your opponents or otherwise be mean. No part of debate justifies being a jerk. Also, I weigh nuclear impacts quite poorly. Beyond that, run whatever and I'll evaluate it within the round.
Kelsey Schott (BA, MA)
US Director, Debate Camp (www.debatecamp.com)
Communication Graduate Student, Assistant Debate Coach, Ball State University ‘21
Eastbourne College Debater in Residence, British Parliamentary Coach ‘19
Simpson College, competed in Parliamentary & Public Forum Debate ‘18
I am currently the US Director for Debate Camp, writing debate and public speaking curriculum and training new and returning staff for online and in-person programming.
I previously was an assistant debate coach at Ball State University (2019-21) for Parliamentary and NEDA debate and a COMM 210 public speaking instructor. I was the Debater in Residence for Eastbourne College in England where I taught Politics and ran the debating and Model UN programs. As a collegiate competitor at Simpson College, I competed in both Parliamentary and Public Forum debate along with various speech events.
Public Forum & NEDA
I will flow the entire round and use my flow to determine the round. I can follow speed most of the time and if I’m not writing you should slow down. Please make sure your opponents are okay with speed before the round to ensure fairness and education for everyone.
I like framework arguments if they’re done well. Both sides should address framework arguments if they are presented and carry them through all speeches for me to fully consider them. Please present net-benefits and impacts in the round. I favor debaters who articulate why their argumentation matters. I often vote off impacts and impact calculus.
Please use your summary speech to clarify and actually summarize the round. I view additional line-by-line argumentation in summary speeches unnecessary. You should use this speech for any clarifications on the flow that need to be made to solidify areas of heavy clash. I favor summary speeches that lay the groundwork for the final focus and introduce voters. Your final focus should only be used to give me reasons to vote for you. Give me a couple reasons why you won the round not why your opponents lost the round. I like our world vs their world analysis of the round to show me who outweighs on voters.
I will give speaker points on a 22-30 scale. Unless I am totally offended or you insulted an opponent, I will not go below 22. I will only give a 30 if I think you were one of the best speakers at the tournament.
I like rounds that are fun and provide education!
Three years of Varsity HS Policy in Kansas
Currently in my third year of college PF
I actually genuinely really care about debate as an educational activity. I believe part of this is being a good person, if you're rude or bigoted in any way you will lose my ballot. Everyone in this room deserves to feel safe and you won't be rewarded for impeding that. This will always be my biggest voter.
With a policy background, I default to being a policy judge unless you tell me I should be voting on something else. I'll listen to what y'all decide the framework of the round should be. I can follow most arguments, but if you want to know something specific please don't hesitate to ask! I'm more than willing to elaborate on any part of my paradigm for you before the round begins :)
Parent judge, please go at a conversational speed. Appreciate clarity and conciseness. Speeches and crossfire are both important. Have fun and enjoy the round
I have 2 years of experience in LD and 2 years of experience in Policy. I went to Millard South High School.
I ran mostly traditional arguments in high school so if you run high theory debates I fully support it I just need you to really explain your link to the resolution and/or the affirmative and explain your alternative really well.
I don't always remember to time so please remember to time yourselves.
Add me to the email chains just because I like to read the unhighlighted portions of cards.
If I hear the same case ran multiple times with pre-fiat education claims I find it pretty unpersuasive.
I also love analytical arguments. I love analytics, it makes me think that y'all are doing the debating in your own head and thinking for yourselves and not just reading cards.
If you are running a K affirmative, you should still be spending almost all of your 2AC on case. Listening to a critical affirmative is one thing but being able to explain your alternative, link to the resolution and why your pre-fiat impacts have solvency is extremely important to me. Because of this, I find myself skewed against K affirmatives because I have a pretty high solvency threshold. Know your case an explain to me why I vote on it, or else I will vote Negative on presumption.
I like affirmative cases. I'm pretty even Steven on condo arguments, I think if the negative is making contradictory arguments I would buy condo bad a lot more, but at the end of the day it's all up to interpretations.
I find myself liking generic links bad arguments. I find it persuasive to me if the affirmative says "the negative cannot prove how the affirmative specifically triggers X."
I like permutation arguments to be materialized. If the affirmative can specifically show a world with direct interaction between their plantext and the alternative I will almost always vote for the permutation.
If you are running a K, explain your alternative. I see way too many teams barely talk about their alternative because they argue the links too hard. I will not buy an empty K shell. Tell me what your K does and how your alternative functions/solves.
I love PICs. Literally if you run a case-specific PIC I will probably vote for you.
I read the entirety cards, if the affirmative has bad evidence and negative lets them get away with it, I will be mad and point it out in my notes.
I will probably not vote negative if you have no on-case evidence. You have proved that the affirmative is fulfilling their burden so why should I ignore their entire case with full solvency for a K with a grassroots movements DA. I probably will not buy it unless you are an off-case god.
If you rely on a K or a CP for all of your solvency I am super against flowing this affirmative, that being said I will if it feels necessary. Don't screw up the perm work, that should be the argument you prep out the most on a K/CP. (Hence why I love PICs)
Assistant Coach of Debate at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls, SD
Please add my email to the email chain: email@example.com
I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students. Speech > Speech Doc
I prefer providing oral RFDs unless rounds are extremely complicated or messy —those RFDs take more time. I understand the commitment you put into the activity so I try my best to put the same amount of effort into judging and making a decision. Nothing is worse than when a judge does not care about what they do and do not give you real feedback because the whole point of the activity is education and to learn. Post round oral disclosure is good (on balance). I subscribe to (most of) Lawrence Zhou's thoughts on the matter here. If you're from South Dakota, bonus points if you read that one. ;)
My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate start time. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time. If it's excessive, I will time it, and it will come out of your prep time and your speaker points.
This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. If you're going too fast, I'll communicate that in round. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language... If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up). I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275+ words per minute. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.
I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.
Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.
Prep time/calling for cards:
If it looks like you are prepping, I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.
I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent rather than doing this inefficient one (1) card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do though, please be efficient. I blame inefficient evidence exchange on the team fetching the evidence, not on the team requesting it.
Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive English paper. If you paraphrase, then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct citation as well as the important/cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate.
Public Forum time structures are not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. No plan texts or counterplan texts please (note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument, just answer it...)
Very high threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. Theory should be a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard.
Disclosure is good (on balance)
I feel that debaters/teams should disclose. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate.
ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.
TLDR: If your version of debate doesn't promote clash, you're going to have a tough time winning my ballot. Beyond that, it's about the learning.
Postround as hard as you want. I won't change my decision, but I believe it helps education for the activity for both judge and debaters.
- Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
- I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible for you. Know that the tournament has an equity officer for a reason.
- Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will fail. There's a reason speech times decrease.
- Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. I try to be as wary as possible of my own implicit biases in giving low speaks for this. I've had too many students (especially women and POC) docked speaker points for being "too aggressive" towards or for "interrupting" their male opponents. If you feel I am unfair on this, postround me, and we can discuss.
- I will negate speaks for pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did; etc. You need to meet your opponent at their best, as they should do to you.
Having done mostly policy and PKD LD makes me mostly a gamesplayer. Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly anything goes with me.
If you are speeding and your opponents ask you not to I will listen to your opponents.
I hate judicial activism and will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.
If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.
UPDATED: Nov. 2021
I am an assistant coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I am now in my 6th year as a coach at BHS. I coach primarily speech.
1. When it comes to judging debate, I am looking for a speed level slightly above conversation speed. I do not care for fast speakers since competitors are supposed to be convincing the judge and not outspeaking the competition.
2. For the delivery of the case, I am looking for competitors to clearly lay out their case by stating what are their contentions and subpoints.
3. While debating, I am looking for clear connections to the impacts of your evidence and case.
4. Also, while debating I am looking for competitors to be civil and allow each other to ask questions and not cut each other off.
Hey y'all my name is Eva Vasilopoulos and I'm a second year political science, public relations, and economics majors at Iowa State University. I just recently got back into the debate realm this year so I am not fully in the loop on the topic. I did policy debate in high school for Niles North.
Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast
I don't know this topic that well so keep that in mind
Just call me Eva, not judge
line by line is important
I don't care what speed you read but just be clear
Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)
I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.
have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.
t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.
Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.
A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.
I use she/her/hers pronouns.
Debate Background: I did four years of PF debate at Lincoln North Star from 2016-2020 in the NE circuit, I also did a brief stint of LD and some Congress. I now assistant coach PF at Lincoln Southeast High School. This is my first year consistently judging.
Disclaimer: I won't tolerate any exclusionary or hateful rhetoric. Debate is a fun and educational experience, and should be a safe and accessible space for all students.
Debate Substance/Content: Whatever arguments you read, clearly show me how your impacts outweigh compared to your opponents. If all your args are warranted, have clear links, and are extended, that's how you'll win my ballot. I'll only weigh the topic substance that is in your case and rebuttal, so don't waste your time by bringing up a new argument halfway through the round. I don't flow extremely specific numbers/card names, just what it all means, so don't waste too much time doing this either. The better use of your time is focusing on the impact, rather than the actual numbers themselves.
***Substance Exceptions: I don't care much for disclosure/debate theory. I don't really think it has a place in PF so I wouldn't suggest running these arguments with me because I'm not going to weigh it. I won't consider disclosure theory unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm not all too familiar with progressive arguments so I wouldn't entirely suggest this either. If you run a progressive/LD-type argument, make them extremely clear.
Debate Etiquette: I can handle any speed, just make sure you enunciate. If you choose to spread though, keep in mind I can only write so fast. Clearly state your impact at the very end of your response so it's the last thing I hear/it secures its spot on my flow. I like simple off-time roadmaps, such as "aff, neg, impacts" etc. This is generally how I think the debate should go.
-Rebuttal: All your responses/blocks and rebuilding your case if time. Basically, new stuff then old stuff.
-Summary: Extending all your new and old args/impacts of the round and why you outweigh.
-Final Focus: REALLY telling me why you outweigh, with the same args/impacts from summary.
***I don't care for any rudeness, sarcasm, or dominating time during cross. I think it's really distasteful and I'll dock you speaking points. Please have your stuff organized, I get a bit annoyed when anyone takes longer than usual to find a card to exchange during prep.
RFDs: I typically only include a brief RFD when I submit my ballot, but I try my best to give extensive feedback by the end of the tournament. I'm always open to questions at the end of the round if you'd like more explanation on anything.
Good luck and have fun!
Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.
PF - I dislike theory but I dislike paraphrasing even more. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important. Con probably doesn't have a burden to provide an alternative to diplomacy, but it does go a long way toward establishing uniqueness for any offense against diplomacy. "Diplomacy is worse than this specific/probable alternative" is a more compelling argument than "diplomacy is bad".
LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.
I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.
Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.
My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):
Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.
I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.
Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.
Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.
Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.
I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.
As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.