NORTH AMERICAN DEBATE CIRCUIT Turquoise Cup
2022 — NSDA Campus, US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Background : I have experience in debating and judging since school.
Advice for speakers:
I appreciate Off time road maps and good structure
Debating should be done in the politest manner. I am strict against Stereotypes, rude comments, Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone.
I appreciate good and valid evidence and clear statements from them.
General Contention Advise:
Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis.
Clear flagging of main argumentation is necessary.
Good rebuttals and good responses with comparatives are always good.
Try not to knife your partner.
Summary speeches should have great focus on clashes.
1. Analysis and comparative engagement would enhance marks.
2.Quality of speeches even if you win or lose
3. Bad and unsolicited behavior would tank your scores and even make you lose.
Public Forum paradigm
A few remarks:
- If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
- Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
- If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
- Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
- Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
- If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
- Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.
I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:
- You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
- Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
- You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.
What matters, in rough order of importance:
- Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
- The presence of weighing/narrative.
- Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
- Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
- Appealing rhetorical style.
- In-round courtesy and professionalism.
I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.
Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.
Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.
I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!
Add me to the chain email@example.com
Speech times are set
Signpost or I will not flow
Overviews are appreciated
IMPACT CALC PLEASE or you will not like the consequences
Generally Tabula Rasa
Run your thing but you better explain and justify why collective post-modernist Foucutism is good idea.
If you run dense philosophy keep in mind that my head is empty, explain what you are talking about and contextulize all of it to the ballot, otherwise don't complain about the decision
Speed is fine but Slow Down on voters and analytics
I have decent topic familiarity
Don't love tag teaming, do it at the risk of your speaks
Make the debate accessible, that's the point of the event. If you want to run wacky stuff go to policy
I don't have arg preferences but don't run wacky stuff if your opponents aren't comfortable with it
29: Top speaker of the day
28: I got you
27: I didn't get you
26: Words were spoken?
25: No, but different
When judging a debate, I consider
- arguments and style about equally. It is easier for me to evaulate arguments presented in a structured format.
- the final focus as a chance for debaters to summarize their strongest arguments
- whether the debater extends an argument in rebuttal or summary speeches
- analytics supported by evidence over analytics.
-Consistent arguments/logic (do the arguments you use have consistent logic with others you use? Are you arguments cohesive?)
-Thoughtful research/well-chosen examples (not as many examples as one can think of, just your best/strongest)
-Civil tone/respect between debaters/good sportsmanship
-Limited amount of logical fallacies (goes back to first point, but figured I'd include it; if you can avoid them altogether this is preferable)
-Good/relevant crossfire questions and responses (also keeping consistent with your team's overall logic/argument)
-Weigh your arguments/impacts in the second round! (This helps me frame how I'm meant to think about your evidence and strengthens your view)
Not Looking For:
-"Spreading" or any "speed" debating (I am not specifically trained in this style of debate, nor do I find it beneficial in the long-run; watch your speed––it's just as important that your judge/audience can fully parse/absorb your arguments/info as it is to fit every piece of information in)
-Redundant/repetitive arguments or contradictions in your own information/logic (ties into the above points on having consistency and well-thought-out examples)
-"Dancing around" the question (particularly noticeable in crossfire exchanges; there is no shame in admitting to not knowing something/needing more research to be done on a given question; you're not running for high office so no need to circumvent direct/clear answers to things)
I have some prior judging experience but I am still relatively new to it.
I prefer evidence based argumentation but I will vote on "reason" based arguments if they are done well.
Please keep theory and K's to a minimum especially in PF.
If paraphrasing is nessesary please ensure it Is ethical.
All arguments should be supported by evidence, I will prefer evidence over "logic"
I can understand faster speaking, but I do prefer slower more concise speaking
If you run terminal impacts, the links must be strong and direct
I dislike off timer road maps, please do not use them when I am judging your round
(don't even try to run theory this guy will not understand it) - his son
Hello, this is Shen.
I prefer to see that the debaters back their opinions/arguments with evidence and civility. Speaking clearly to the point is more important than speaking fast.
I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).
Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!
Email for anything: firstname.lastname@example.org
World Schools Debate:
My favorite form of debate because in my opinion it is the most accessible. Style is 40% of points so keep in mind that presentation and delivery are very important in this event especially. This means no spreading! Speeches should utilize all three criteria (content, style, and strategy) in order to deliver the most convincing presentation of their case. I will evaluate holistically based on which team employs these criteria the best and therefore is most convincing. Use POIs strategically in order to poke holes in the opponents case and make them explain their reasoning/evidence/analysis, which you could use in rebuttals later. Make sure to clash with the opponent, clearly point out where their case is flawed, by the end of the round you should make it very clear why the world of the Prop is better than the Opp, or vice versa.
I really appreciate a performer who really embodies the character in order to get the messaging across. A memorized, meaningful intro is important. I'm not looking for constant yelling/crying, rather theatrics that are used to get the mood across. Stay in character, "popping" is important too, use timing, think meaningful pauses and switch up your tone/pacing when necessary. Remember it is a performance, so do what you can to clearly portray the author's/your message that you are sending with this piece. I also pay attention to and appreciate good cutting--think structure, plot, etc. The piece should be cut around a clear distinguishable climax, and structured in an order that makes sense to tell the story to the audience.
This is a challenging event (but so rewarding!) The important thing to me is not a flawless delivery (though that is very impressive), but a speech that is well structured with a clear, defensible answer to the question. Clever intro that ties into the rest of the speech (revisited again at the conclusion) are always appreciated! You should have 2-3 reasons to support your answer, each one with your own intelligent analysis andsources. The extemp walk is super useful too, (muscle memory) and a good way to demonstrate structure within your speech.
This was my favorite event in high school! The most important thing here is a good, interesting topic that you analyze thoroughly and with a unique perspective. The most important word in Info is implications. What are the implications of your topic? Don't just tell me about it, tell me why in detail why I should care and how it affects me. I LOVE an interactive, creative visual, it is important that you use it purposefully, not just cause. A visual should enhance your points and be used at the right moment so as to not distract from your speech. Delivery is important (be clear and loud), but do not be robotic! Show some personality and of course humor is always appreciated.
Oratory is a super cool and unique event. The point of an oratory is to make the audience think about your topic in a way they never have before. Your speech should leave the room with a new perspective on your topic that they may want to incorporate in their own lives. I.e. If your topic is about, say, coffee, I should be left educated and with a brand new perspective of thinking about coffee. Be persuasive! Show me that your unique thoughts on coffee are worth every second of your ten minutes. Be engaging, loud, clear, and persuasive in your delivery. Humor is always appreciated.
Be persuasive and clash with your opponent!
Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.
Email chain: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks
-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.
-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.
-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.
-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.
Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds
-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.
-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.
-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.
-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.
-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.
-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.
-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.
-Answer theory please.
Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background
West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.
CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.
Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.
Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.
This is my first experience being a judge. Please be respectful to your opponents.
Be clear and consistent with your argument. Do not rush but maintain the pace. Articulate clearly on the importance of your argument with good evidences. Be engaged and have fun!
For nsd '23: no theta or epsilon team should initiate theory on a lambda or kappa team
Tech > Truth
Speed fine but don't be exclusionary to your opponents
Speaks will be high unless you are mean. then they will be low
second rebuttal respond to first
Defense is not sticky
there are RVI's and you can't change my mind
for arguments that ask me to endorse a norm with my ballot I'm truth > tech
reasonability is live
Hello debaters! My name is Mandy and I am a first year college student at UC Irvine. I was a former public forum debater in high school and I am excited to be judging for you all!
- Be respectful to each other.
- Preferred: When evidence is presented, please make sure to include your source/citations. Weigh the impact of your arguments.
- Theory Arguments: Not preferred... Debate the resolution!
- Speak CLEARLY. Speed is okay, but you must be understandable
Other than that, debate how you want, nothing in there is set in stone - I'll try and adapt to you.
If there's anything I can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before the round. If you are making an email chain for evidence, please add me: Mandyhuang2003@gmail.com
I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid technical jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.
I am a fresh out of college Chemical Engineering Graduate. I have completed several judging courses certified by the National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS) such as Adjudicating Speech and Debate course, Cultural Competency course, Implicit Bias, etc.
Generally as a judge I value the following.
1. Clarity: outline what your key contentions are early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.
2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matter from the other side. Be sure to make strategic consessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are true or important to the debate, and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.
3. Conclusions: when deciding a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate in terms of strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanize each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them to make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.
Lastly, I am quite flexible when adjudicating and everyone should feel free. Let's enjoy the debate and have fun! No bullying or targetting of any sort.
David Levin (he/him/his)
Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT
Email Chain: email@example.com
be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.
Paradigms for PF, PD, LD, and Parli below.
FOR YALE POLICY PREFS/STRIKES
I come from a policy background with ample circuit judging experience from 2016-2020. I judge and coach much more PF these days, but I’m a competent flow.
If I end up judging your round, I only ask that you go a bit slower for online debate (think 75% of your top speed). My favorite rounds to judge are K v K and K v FW/T, but I’m happy to evaluate anything brought my way. Issues to note are that I dislike underviews and I keep a worse flow when teams shotgun a ton of conditional disads. My ideal round for this tournament is a robust K v K round delivered at “lay-ish” speed. If this isn’t your cup of tea, no biggie, just debate to your strengths :)
>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.
"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt of the earth "normal" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly.* It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I like this article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.
Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.
Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however, if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.
Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't need to be read slower, but they do benefit from it.
If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.
How I flow:
I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.
I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).
I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.
How I evaluate:
A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.
Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.
I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.
If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.
Crossfire is binding.
Topical "normative" Cases:
Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.
Topical "critical" Cases:
Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.
Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?
Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.
Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.
Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.
Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.
I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.
If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).
I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).
I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.
T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.
Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.
"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.
I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks". *my paradigm for friv theory/tricks debaters here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNC1CpJQxzg
Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.
Cut cards are and ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.
I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.
Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.
5 rounds judged 2022-23. I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.
Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. Policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just shoot me an email.
2 rounds judged 2022-23. Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.
You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.
4 rounds judged 2022-23. I did not enjoy any of them.
change my mind! :)
I'm Matthew, an ex debater in high school and I competed regularly for 5 years.
I will flow arguments and cross, but will mainly judge on your arguments & speeches.
For respective events, please follow NSDA guidelines and rules. Don't run counterplans on LD and PF.
No personal biases will be considered when judging, my vote is depend on arguments presented during the round and only the round.
Please be respectful to your opponent.
Information about my way of Judging:
- I am a novice to judging although I have went through some information about this topic and watched a few videos.
- Please keep your arguments clear and consistent.
- I appreciate logic and evidence in your rebuttal.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.
I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.
27.7 to 28.2 - Average
28.3 to 28.6 - Good job
28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average
29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job
29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.
30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.
I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.
I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.
Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.
GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!
LD June 13, 2022
A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!
LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022
I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.
Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.
I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!
i do deb8
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
Debate for fun
Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.
As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.
I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.
I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"
On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."
I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.
These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant
Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.
My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.
I encourage all the participants to go with what they have prepared and not modify their speed to cater to me. All the Best!!
Here is my experience in Judging Speech and Debate Tournaments:
2021 NSDA Springboard Scrimmage 6 - Public Forum, 2021 PF World Championships for NATO topic - Public Forum, 2021 NSDA Springboard Scrimmage 9 - Speech, 2021 John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU DempseyCronin - Speech, 2021 La Reina Invitational - Debate, 2022 The Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational - JV/MS Public Forum, 2022 Marlborough Middle School Invitational 2 - PF
I've been in speech and debate for eight years. This is my 9th year. I'm familiar with PF, LD, and CX. Please be respectful to your opponents. I don't prefer speed in an online setting. Quality is better than quantity. If your opponent cannot understand you because you're talking unreasonably fast for them, slow down. The point of debate is to practice your communication and discussion skills. I would love to see good questions asked during cross examination. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap (basically whether you'll be going over your case or your opponent's case first) and go down the flow in order so it's easy for me to follow. I heavily rely on my flow to decide who wins the round. Give me voters (reasons why I should vote for you) at the end. All evidence must be given in a card format; I don't like links to uncut articles. Last but definitely not least, show your passion and have fun!
My name is Hyun and I am a parent judge.
I am new to judging debate and English is not my first language. So I would like to ask the debaters to speak slower and more correctly for their discussion. That would be helpful to me to understand the debater's speech more clearly and to evaluate their debate more correctly. I think the speaking speed of the news anchor would be good for me.
I will not evaluate new arguments brought up in the final speeches.
I would like to ask the debaters to speak with a few technical terms. Please make the debate accessible to me.
Hey, I'm Yash.
I'm not very experienced in judging, so I'm open to all styles of debate.
I prefer if you don't spread too much, so its easier to understand your arguments.
Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.
This will be my first time judging, but I have received training and I have past experience judging moot court competitions during law school. I'm currently practicing as a lawyer and I earned my bachelor's degree in physics.
As a judge, I will be hands-off and will follow your arguments wherever you choose to take them. I am looking first and foremost for carefully reasoned arguments. When an argument relies on an empirical claim, strong, relevant citations are important.
Please keep in mind this is my first time judging, so keeping a moderate speaking pace and limiting debate jargon is appreciated.
Email for document sharing/evidence chains: email@example.com
I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 14 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.
LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory with no actual clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.
PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash. Again, I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory.
CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) I do not traditionally like Ks because I feel like there is always a performative contradiction. If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.
General Things ~
Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.
Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.
Don't advocate for atrocities.
Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)
- Strong evidence based opinions
- Rebuttal arguments
- A lot of questions in cross-ex
- Use of facial expressions and gestures
- Emphasis in making the audience connected
- Keeping the composure in arguments
I am a parent judge. I believe this is a great learning platform for all of us. I look forward to learning from your ideas, arguments and reasoning.
1. Greet everyone and introduce yourselves.
2. Demonstrate respect and professionalism. Adhere to time limits.
3. Be original and be comfortable. I will adjust to your style of presenting.
Please highlight maximum 3 main arguments for your case along with 3 supporting evidences. Additionally, pay attention to other team's arguments and respond accordingly.
My decision will be based on the strength of reasoning, impacts, rebuttal and weighing in Summary Speech(SS) and Final Focus(FF). Any additional weighing that is not stated in Summary Speech will be quantified in my choice. No new cards or arguments should be made in Final Focus(FF).
Hope you will have great learning experience and have fun!
As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.
I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.
As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.
Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially trans-formative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.
1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.
2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.
3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.
4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.
Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.
Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.
Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.
Everything is fine
Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. I have been judging debates for more than two years. I enjoy hearing debaters speak passionately about their chose topics. When debating I prefer if a debater allows the other side to finish speaking before they speak. This is especially true during crossfires.