Tabroom.com

The Milo Cup at Millard North

2023 — NSDA Campus, NE/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Anton Angeletti Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Thu November 3, 2022 at 4:40 PM CDT

Anton Angeletti - he/him/his - please add both aangelettidebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Background: In high school, I competed in public forum for Lincoln Southwest, mostly on the Nebraska circuit. Graduated in 2022, currently a freshman Computer Science major at UNL.

Don't be disrespectful. Safety and inclusivity come before everything else in debate.

GENERAL

I don't coach, so it's best to assume I know very little about the topic

I evaluate on the flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in both summary and final focus.

Rebuild/frontline in 2nd rebuttal, you don't need to in 1st

Summary is the most important speech. I'd recommend collapsing on important arguments instead of trying to bring everything through, but I don't care what structure or strategy you go for as long as it's consistent in the latter half of the round.

Extending evidence: don't just tell me the author's name, tell me what they say and why it matters

If you want something from cross to matter in the round, bring it up in a speech

Signposting is more important than offtime roadmaps (but both are nice)

Tech > truth, unless you're straight up lying

Do the weighing for me, impacts matter more and more as the round progresses

Clash is super important. Make sure you're debating at each other, not past each other

Defense isn't sticky, extend your responses or I won't evaluate them

If you control the narrative for the round, you win the round

Procedural stuff:

Email chains are the best way to share evidence

I won't flow off speech docs, barring tech issues

Time yourselves, as well as each other

If you make an effort to keep the round running quickly, I'll bump speaks

Theory: I have a very high threshold for theory arguments in PF. I'll flow it, just don't be surprised if I don't consider it in my decision. The only times I'm likely to vote on it is when something harmful has been done in-round (failing to provide a content warning, misgendering someone, etc). Other than that, I believe it creates muddy rounds and increases the barrier to entry in PF, which I consider more important than setting norms. The messier an argument gets, the more likely I am to ignore it completely.

Other progressive arguments (Ks, etc): Risky to run in front of me, if I don't understand it well enough to vote on it I won't.

Any questions, just ask me before/after round or email me at aangelettidebate@gmail.com.

Bryan Benitez Hire

Last changed on Sun September 24, 2023 at 6:52 AM PDT

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- stop saying actor incentive analysis

___________________

***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>

dec '22 update:

Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards

Updates as of Jan '22 topic

Argumentation

- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)

- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.

Logistics

-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

Debate is a game so tech>truth
Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
if i look confused, i probably am
give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
defense isnt sticky
Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,

Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me

do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
Dont do "extend our link"

for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary

this also goes for arguments that are conceded

First summary

Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact

Second summary

This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
Defense must also be extended

Final focus

Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it

If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument

I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate

Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
I will vote for one team and one team only

I will evaluate theory

Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.

Donts

Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading

This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices

Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

Extras

From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)

other events

im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

Rajneesh Bhandari BASIS Independent McLean

Ellie Bi Milpitas High School

Chris Bian Dulles High School

Jen Brothers Pittsburgh Allderdice High School

Royce Carr Rock Hill HS

Seth Carter Rock Bridge High School

Last changed on Fri September 29, 2023 at 8:43 AM CDT

Hello, I am Sage, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years in high school in Kansas doing mostly traditional policy and LD. I am debating in college at Missouri Valley College in policy and NFA-LD from time to time. I also am an assistant coach at Rock Bridge High School (MO). I mostly coach traditional policy, but I still know the topic decently well.

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Would love to be on the email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

If you are interested in doing college debate and forensics please talk to me :)

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, making (tasteful) jokes is encouraged, laughing, and smiling during a debate is what I love to see. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 8.5/10 on a good day. Just keep an eye out for my expressions to know if you're going too fast for me. For the rest of the paradigm, like all judges, I have some biases with arguments and deficiencies in some areas, this paradigm will hopefully be able to answer a majority of your questions, but if I am unclear or you want more clarification on something, please ask me!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do judge instruction! If I have to come to my own conclusions in the debate and having to read evidence, I may come to a conclusion that you disagree with. To prevent that, you should be so explicit how you want me to evaluate this round and what my ballot should say. I will find the easiest way to the ballot, and if the other team lays out a clearer route than you do, I will take that route.

T/Theory-

You're going to want to slow down here, especially if you are going down the line by line.

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead

I've debated at small schools all my career, so I love those impacts especially and I am a huge fan of brightlines. Other than those, I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.

I don't know what are the popular T arguments are or what T debates look like on this topic, so if it's a really weird interp or something like that, probably explain it a bit more than you would for me.

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I don't have much experience with this debate personally, but I can still evaluate it well, I just don't read it personally and don't see many non-policy affs in Missouri.

Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best

For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

My favorite argument and the one I am most familiar with. The lit bases I know strongly are queer/trans theory, capitalism, biopolitics (specifically Agamben), academy/university, and militarism/security. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.

I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

Sunil Chebiyam Mira Loma High School

Lily Cheng Sunset High School

Sonali Chetty Champion School

Urvi Chopra Vista Del Lago High School None

Jordan Cohen Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 4:00 AM EDT

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

Maddie Cook Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Sat September 23, 2023 at 9:36 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.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"

Experience:

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 September/October 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.

General:

I will generally judge the debate you want to have.
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.
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence 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 with 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 (madelyncook23@gmail.com).

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
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.

Theory:

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 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.

Kritiks:

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 and the structure of PF is inherently built against kritiks, 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.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
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.

Congress:

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 madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Lynne Coyne Myers Park High School

Last changed on Sat May 27, 2023 at 1:30 AM EDT

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

POLICY UPDATE

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important.

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates andugly tech debates.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Raoul Davion Gallatin Valley Independent

Jennifer Giarrusso Pittsburgh Allderdice High School

Last changed on Wed April 14, 2021 at 5:30 AM EDT

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Yes for grand crossfire, no for final focus.

Lisa Grzywacz Cranbrook

Jeff Harkleroad Hire

Last changed on Sat October 15, 2022 at 2:53 PM EDT

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

INTERP overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Aedan Helweg Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 5:35 AM CDT

Updated 13 February 2023 for Milo Cup at Millard North.

IMPORTANT THING:

I am back from pretty much two years of not judging at all, except for like one or two online tournaments. Topic knowledge is (still) almost zilch. Explain things like I’m a literal child. Speak slow-ish and clear.

For PF: I have judged one PF round ever but they are putting me in the pool at Milo, so the basics is to approach me like you would approach any policy or LD judge. That's what I am and that's how I evaluate rounds, mostly. Read on if you're interested in more specifics.

ok, now back to our regular programming.

TL;DR: do you, this isn’t my activity, it’s yours. With very limited exceptions, I’ll listen to and evaluate just about anything as long as you tell me what I should be evaluating and how. The most important thing you can do for me is spend 30 seconds at the top or bottom of your last speech telling me what my ballot should read. The rest, as they say, is up to you.

I am also disabled. I had two eye surgeries in 3 years and still cannot quite read the way I was able to in school. This means I a) need to be on the email chain, speechdrop, or whatever, and b) need you to not spread nearly as much. If you’re usually an 8 or 9 out of 10 for speed, go like a 5 or maximum a 6 ESPECIALLY on pre-written analytics and tags. Some speed is fine but it’s your fault if I don’t flow you and if it’s not on my flow it won’t be on my ballot. I don't like saying "clear" so I won't unless you are literally impossible to understand - it's really on you to make sure I'm getting everything you want me to get.

Conflicts:I went to Lincoln High (NE) and coached for a year at St Louis Park (MN). Currently unaffiliated.

Wait, who?

I’m Aedan! I did policy debate from 2012-16 at Lincoln High School in Nebraska, and after that I coached LD at St. Louis Park, did mock trial at Macalester College, and have judged occasionally at tournaments in Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.I was a 1A/2N for most of my career, and I mostly went for the K vs policy affs and framework vs K affs. I’m also fluent in German and lived for a while in Austria which is cool I guess.

The golden rule of debating in front of me:

Debate like I’m lazy, stupid, and mean. I am none of those things (at least I think so), but I have a very high threshold for argument explanation and contextualization and a very low tolerance for creating clash where none exists. I do not intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. You tell me how to vote and why in a way that someone who doesn’t know much about debate could understand. Wanna practice this? Go explain your case to your parents or friends who don’t do debate. It’s that simple.

Other important things:

Email chain: yes put me on it. aedanmh@gmail.com. Please and thank you. I am now aware that speechdrop exists - if you use that I'd love the code.

My pronouns are he/they. Feel free to tell me your pronouns if you like but I won't ask for them.

I’m a pretty good judge for wack arguments. I did policy debate in Nebraska at a certain time. Whatever you run, I’ve probably seen/run/voted on something weirder. Dedev, Nietzsche, and global/local were my bread and butter as a 2N. As was T vs K affs. :P

But I’ll pull the trigger on T or nuclear war just as quickly if it wins the debate. You can't expect to win on fight club or the ice age DA just because you saw me in the back of the room. I don’t hack for wack. I just believe in giving wack a chance.

Same goes for theory and super dense phil etc in LD. A good phil debate is really fun to judge though, same with a good theory debate. LDers are way better at these than policy debaters ever were in my experience.

Tricks: I’ll vote on them, but I don’t vote on cheap shots and I will gut check at the first utterance of the word. If you're going to win on a trick you have to make sure it is set up appropriately with definitions and explanations of burden of proof etc. "Vote for me because the sky is blue" or "there are infinite worlds and in some of them the rez is true" don't work without this setup.

I don’t flow CX, but a good CX that makes me look up from my laptop will make me happy and you will likely be happy(er) with your speaker points.

Speaks: 26-30, 28 is what I consider to be average. Better than 28.5 means I think you should break, better than 29.5 means I'll be shocked if you don't win the tournament or at least make a very deep run. I try to adjust my speaks based on the tournament i.e. I'm more of a stickler the more bids are available and/or the bigger the tournament is.

Here’s what happens if you are offensive to your opponent, clip cards, are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc: I will stop the round. I will drop you with the lowest speaker points the tournament allows. I’ll make sure the tournament directors and your coaches are aware of what happened, and I’ll take any additional actions that are required of me. Just don’t do it.

On the subject of Ks vs T or LARP/Policy v K debates generally:

This gets its own section because I judge a lot of these debates and these debaters tend to be the ones to pref me when prefs exist. This is a good thing because this is my favorite kind of debate to judge. I opted into these debates frequently as a debater and I think talking about what debate should look like is one of the most productive things we can do in terms of the "education" arguments that get flung around.

That said, I do have a slight bias toward cases or interps that at least ask the affirmative to at least take some sort of affirmative stance on the resolution. That can be interpreted however you like, and I can easily be convinced otherwise, but given my background I feel this should be expected. If I am given explicit reasons to reject this viewpoint I'm more than willing to do so.

If you're LARPing (or reading T), though, you should be prepared to defend the implications of your advocacy. Just as the specificity of the link matters, so too do the specificity of the answers and defenses of one's implications. LARP is cool, I did policy, I can handle LARP, but just because I default to us debating about the resolution and am semi-persuaded by "fiat good" doesn't mean you get to ignore prefiat implications and read generic answers to whatever you think your opponent is reading. The better LARPers and T debaters are at answering exactly what their opponent is arguing, the more likely I am to vote on those subjects. My bias toward "resolution is good/fiat is good" does not extend nearly far enough for anyone to claim I hack for such debaters.

For the K debater, the same applies because you NEED to know what you're reading. I confess to being occasionally guilty of this myself in high school; I loved a spicy meatball and sometimes read things I only half-understood. Remember what I said above about lazy, stupid, and mean? I got that from one of my philosophy professors and this is where that applies the most. I'm not going to do extra work for you so you need to take extra time and make sure I know what you're arguing in extremely simple terms. I often will understand what you're saying due to my background, but there are many times where you will lose me. Axe the jargon, speak to me in language your non-debater friends and family could understand, and be a better debater than I was. Do your homework, take some time to understand your literature, and you'll go far in front of me.

Last:

Please share your musical tastes with me. Currently playing: Bad Bad Hats, Peter Fox, and a lot of music I found on tiktok. Maisie Peters, Knox, Isabel Pless, Loveless, and many more. I am also a huge swiftie. #1 on spotify wrapped every year since I can remember except like one.

If there's anything that's not on here that you want to know about, please ask. I always appreciate questions and in fact am likely to engage in some sort of conversation before the round starts.

:)

Charles Huang Palo Alto High School

Zhihua Jiang Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Jacob Kaminski Trinity Preparatory School

Last changed on Thu June 15, 2023 at 8:46 AM EDT

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
Win the flow=win the round
Presumption =neg
Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
K debate is even better
Defense needs to be extended
I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

- If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

Pam Khandelwal Thomas Jefferson HSST

Thulani Khumalo Hire

Parker Klyn Theodore Roosevelt High School

Last changed on Sat September 30, 2023 at 5:27 AM CDT

NOTE: I am always happy to provide additional feedback if desired (feel free to email me at klynpar@gmail.com). Speech and debate is awesome, please stick with it if you’re reading this especially if you’re in Iowa. I'm committed to making speech and debate a safe and welcome space for everyone.

My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions

Am decently experienced in Congress and Speech as well, I coached national qualifiers in each in my first year as coach (22-23)

Favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and OO

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Public Forum paradigm

[NATIONAL CIRCUIT ONLY — local competitors just do your best, your coach should’ve taught you how to win PF at a fundamental level, I give really extensive and constructive feedback]

Include me on the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com)

Just win baby! [Win the round. There are a million different tactics and strategies and paths to victory in PF. If you genuinely believe you won a debate round, you should be able to tell me why and how you won.]

I’m a tech judge (tabula rasa and all that), I flow on my computer using Flower

Best way to win the round is to do the work for me

Be kind and respectful, it would take a lot for me to change a ballot because of this but I’m pretty quick to change speaks if it’s rough

Extend everything you’re going for through every speech except 1st rebuttal

I vote on impacts/voters unless the framework set forth is something other than stock benefits/harms or cost-benefit analysis

Speed is fine, obviously if you're spreading just send a speech doc

I don’t flow cross but I pay attention, it’s fun, you should be able to extemporaneously explain things

Instances where I intervene: (1) being abusive (2) theory debates (full explanation below, I'd rather you just do a substance debate) (3) fabricating/misrepresenting evidence (although I'd just prefer the other team call it out, it sucks but if I'm sitting here as a judge and I'm like "that seems false to me" I feel like you should have those instincts too.... I'm not one of those judges who calls for like nine cards after FF)

Speaker points: 0/minimum = abuse, 26 = novice, 27 = needs improvement, 28 = solid, 29 = excellent, 30 = a top debater at this specific tournament the score is given out; I give speaker points for clarity and quality of argumentation (if there's a low speaker point win, the low team won "on the flow" but the higher team were generally better speakers and arguers and probably won the "truth" debate but not the "tech" debate). I don't bump speaks for anything arbitrary, it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw bc another team mentioned a le epic meme in their speech and I definitely am skeptical of people who do this even if it seems innocuous.

(Also, Iowa judges who are reading this paradigm: The speaker point range is 26-30 in 2023, with 26 meaning "the student was a really bad speaker." It's not a decade ago where it was 20-30. Stop making students freak out and arbitrarily lowering their seeds by giving them a 26-27 unless they truly deserved it.)

Theory: [TL;DR: I would rather you just do a substance debate, but I will vote up warranted disclosure shells as well as in-round violations like paraphrasing, misgendering, etc.]

Outside of those, I will vote for a team that introduces theory if you convince me on a personal level that the progressive argument is worth voting for, not necessarily on the flow. As far as I'm concerned, if you sufficiently defend yourself from a theory shell, the only offense you need is in the actual substance/resolution debate. Finally, if I can show a bit of humility, I just don't feel that confident evaluating it compared to my decade of stock PF experience. Feel free to strike me if that spooks you haha, no worries, I like that debate is malleable and forward-looking. And hey, if you read this paradigm (like I know you will) and you say "screw it, I'm gonna run what I want to run," I kinda admire that!

Full explanation: On a personal level, I don’t like theory, I think the fundamental goal of PF is having high school students learn as much as possible about a specific topic/resolution and debate it. "Being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Theory goes against the initial reasons PF was created, which were talking about issues pertinent to the US and the world in a literal “public forum” — nobody’s going on Crossfire or interrupting city council meetings to talk about the inequity between speakers because life/backgrounds/resources are always going to be inherently unequal. To be clear, my perspective is one of somebody who grew up in rural Iowa in a town of 9,000 people and as the current head coach of a forensics program for a school where 56% of our student body is economically disadvantaged — I’m aware of inequality between schools and debate programs. I’ve seen teams from my school lose preposterous and arbitrary theory debates to schools with $45k yearly tuition and ten debate coaches (I’m coaching alone), debates where the primary justification for the progressive argument was “supporting small schools.” Do you see how ridiculous that is? By the way, the last (and only!) time a "small school" team made it to TOC finals was 2006, before Ks and theory were even PF conventions... so it's obviously not working that well? Also, if you're not running a specific theory shell in each round that warrants it, it feels extremely cynical and exploitative. For example, if you're running Round Reports theory, why aren't you running that shell every single time a team doesn't do Round Reports? Because you know some teams are better at responding to it than others and some judges are better at evaluating it than others -- and if your progressive argument is a strategic move rather than a genuine gripe/concern/issue, it completely undermines your argumentation from the start. Anyway, my attempt to “bridge the gap” between not personally liking theory but wanting to recognize all legitimate debating styles is this: I become truth > tech when it comes to theory. If you convince me as a person, not as a judge/flow-er, that you have won under a progressive argumentation framework, then I’ll vote for you. So in the above example of a team with ten coaches at a private school with $45k tuition running round reports theory against my program using "small schools" as the justification, who do you think would win?

I pretty much always buy: disclosure, paraphrasing
I'm open to but I'd much prefer you just do a substance debate: Round Reports, bracketing, topicality (just debate it substantively instead of as a shell)
You have to convince me the truth of your shell for: K-adjacent shells, all theory that is generally considered to be "frivolous"

In other words, if this was phrased like an LD pref sheet, mine would be like: LARP - 1, Theory (disclosure + paraphrasing) - 2, Other non-friv theory - 3, K - 4, Friv/tricks - 6

Ks: Again, I'm truth > tech when it comes to these, I think one of the best parts of debate is that you have to advocate for things you don't actually believe in (I'm anti-capitalist and pro-labor and had to argue that welfare recipients should be drug tested when I was in high school, for example), and if a K is run "correctly" (i.e. with a completely tech judge) I don't really know how the opposing team is necessarily supposed to win. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the "role of my ballot" is anything other than "vote for the team that debates the resolution the best"

Frameworks: I consider these (including structural violence) to be part of the substance debate so go for it, so long as you warrant it -- too often I see people say "our framework is X" without actually providing a reason why

--------------------------------------- [PFers stop reading] -------------------------------------------

Speech

Interp: Please have a clear theme or focus to your performance (It's why piece selection is so important -- please don't get frustrated if I downgrade a performance if I don't enjoy the piece. A prurient example of this is me judging my local circuit's DUOs one year. There was a performance of an excerpt from "Little Women" that was performed/acted beautifully... but the script was just horribly boring and the outdated language + no context for the full story of the [excellent!] novel just made it impossible to get into, so I never ranked them very high despite their great talent. In other words, be entertaining and compelling!)

Extemp: This event doesn’t leave a lot of leeway, the only consistent thing I see people do that hurts them is not answer the question accurately even if they have solid speaking/organization/etc.

OO/INFO: Persuade me and/or inform me, and just generally be compelling and/or entertaining, if you don’t do those things you probably won’t finish very high

Impromptu/Spont: Not telling (:

Congress

Bills: Please make them workable and just generally make them make sense, I hate disorganized and unfocused bills that have zero real-world implication

1st aff: This speech has no excuse to not be rock-solid because you technically have had a week-ish to write it, I’m way more willing to drop 3s and 4s on 1st affs that aren’t effective, give me your impacts clearly and show me why on a human level this bill is needed

1st neg: Need to respond to 2 things: the 1st aff and the bill itself, please do both otherwise it’s not worth the time and either the bill or the 1st aff’s arguments go unchecked

Subsequent speeches: These should be extemporaneous and directly respond to arguments previously made, do not be redundant with previous speeches on your side, I value speaking and argumentation above all

Questioning: Why are Congress competitors so afraid to ask questions? Most Congress speeches at least on the local Iowa level have major flaws either in argumentation/logic or in interpretation/workability of the bill, please call these flaws out if you see them, it’s not disrespectful or bad decorum to use your designated questioning time

Presiding: If I can essentially forget that you exist, you’ll get a really high rating, but if you’re constantly asking the parli for help/stumbling over procedure/messing up recency you won’t be ranked at all

Overall: Give me impacts, actually work really hard in preparation both before and during the session, speak well, and run an efficient and compelling debate

Lincoln-Douglas / Policy / World Schools

Minimal experience, but I'm always excited to learn more! I'm confident in my ability to evaluate arguments and debate but I'll probably get lost if you use excessive event-specific jargon, so please hold my hand a little haha. My overriding philosophy of tabula rasa, keeping judge ballot interference out of decisions, etc. also applies here

Tony Le Lincoln Southwest High School

Annie Li Sunset High School

Tingyu Li Thomas Jefferson HSST

Yu Li Richard Montgomery High School

Ryan Luu Franklin High School

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Marissa Moore Rock Bridge High School

Last changed on Wed June 14, 2023 at 8:49 AM CDT

Credentials:

My name is Marissa (she/her/hers)
I am a student at the University of Missouri majoring in Chemical Engineering with an emphasis in Biochemistry; I also work in a research laboratory where I make biomodulatory materials and related products (e.g. medicines and vaccines). This has influenced my opinions in certain rounds, but I try to not let it affect my overall decision.
My email is mam9k2@umsystem.edu (add me to your email chain/evidence doc, feel free to ask me any questions about anything after the round is over and I have submitted a ballot)
Debated for Battle High School in the Eastern Missouri Circuit from 2017 - 2021

Primarily PF, Inform, OO, and DX

I qualified for Nationals in PF and Inform
I went to State in DX and PF

I’ve also done CX, LD, and almost every IE (in the state of Missouri).

Assistant Coach for Rock Bridge High School in the EastMO Circuit since 2022

Do not use topic-specific jargon without explaining it (general debate jargon is fine). Ex) UBI, BRI, etc. Only hurts you because I'll get distracted trying to figure it out.

How I Will Vote/Weigh:

Framework debate comes first ofc.
Every contention and subpoint on the aff needs to connect to your V and VC. Every attack on the neg should show how they don't support whatever Value won framework OR flaws in evidence and arguments.
Philosophy/Logic/Morals > Empirics > Anecdotal Evidence.
Pls no K's in LD unless you can directly tie them to the framework or resolution.

Key Voter Issues, Weighing, and Impacts are the most important things to me
I do not want to hear you repeat the same empirics over and over again, explain WHY they matter.
I don’t care for evidence debates. Soley going line-by-line will not help you. Only arguing morals with no evidence will also not help. PF should have an equal distribution of these.
I generally dislike frameworks in PF; I absolutely do not like K’s or theory in PF
Being civil in crossfire, especially grand, is especially important

I cannot emphasize this enough, be logical and clear. Logical arguments will always beat out anything else for me.
I am not a big CX fan, so I will be fairly lay. I will make some assumptions in judging such. For example, solvency is most important to me. I just straight up don't know any of the CX lingo so I will be confused :(
I don't understand K’s or theory well so please explain them in a lay way. I would love to hear an K on the CX Nationals stage being a misrepresentation of the event though. Especially at any association tournaments :)
Tech > Truth; My job isn't to prove you wrong, but truth informs better arguments.
If you tag team, clarify that with your opponents before the round.

If I can’t understand you, I can’t give you the win.

Only if your arguments are equally strong/equally weak/no clash/I cannot otherwise decide a winner, I will vote based on the better speaker

Quality > Quantity

General:

Evidence:

Add Me to Your Email Chain/Evidence Document: mam9k2@umsystem.edu
If possible, add all of the evidence in your speech to this email chain

If you are spreading, I expect this.

If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find/share a piece of evidence that has been asked for, I will count it as your prep. (in person, I'm a bit more lenient virtually)
I may ask for evidence, so don’t leave immediately
I do not care if your opponent refuted a specific card or not in PF/LD.

This is because I want you to refute each others’ overall ideas, not what someone else has to say (obviously, if there are numerous cards dropped I will care, but I'm less concerned with 1 statistic vs a pattern of evidence)
I won’t even remember your specific author or date, don’t solely use it to signpost. I won’t know what you are talking about.
I DO care if it is something that has been signposted (contentions/most subpoints) because that will be on my flow

These don’t all need to have unique rebuttals for each point, but it does need to be clear what all you are refuting.

On this note, don’t tell me what to do. Tell me why.

Don’t tell me “they dropped this, vote them down.” Explain that “They dropped this, which is problematic for XYZ, therefore we should win.” If something is dropped and you want to bring it up, I still want to hear why it mattered. I will probably forget you saying it dropped for the same reason it was dropped, so you need to explain it.

Once again, Tech > Truth, but exceptions (blatantly false, no-contest statements that a lay judge would know) exist.

Off the Clock Roadmaps:

Use it when you are arguing in a unique order (anything that’s not 1,2, 3)
Do not give any off-the-clock “arguments”, if you do I will begin my timer.

Timing:

10-second grace period, beyond that I will stop listening/cut you off. 30 is when I mark you down.
Don’t stall, we all have more rounds

About 15 “free” seconds before you need to start speaking

I don't time at Nat Circuit Tournaments, NCFL, or NSDA. If you've made it this far, you should be able to time yourself and each other.

For extemp debate, please no extensive roadmaps. If it's off the clock it increases the time spent in the round by a huge margin and if it's on the clock, you actively hurt your own speech.
Other/Really The Most Important Things:

Be Kind and Civil: NO personal attacks
I generally dislike it when you call me or your opponents by their names unless asked to. I prefer to be called "the judge" and as a competitor, I found it extremely frustrating to be called "Marissa" in round (particularly when I was being cut off in cross... so maybe trust your gut on that one)
Don't let your spectators be rude to me/others. I won't vote you down but I will be less unengaged.
Ask me if I am ready before you begin a speech unless I say I'm always ready. I'm always ready for cross.
Remember your goal is to convince me and not your opponent
I take a lot of notes and will give you feedback on everything from your argument to your speaking style.

On that note, sign-post with 1, 2, 3, etc and/or a, b, c, etc.

Dylan Morgan Theodore Roosevelt High School

Last changed on Thu June 15, 2023 at 8:23 AM CDT

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 morgandylan183@gmail.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!!

Progressive Args

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

Freeda Mostafa Mira Loma High School

Shailesh Murthy Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

EZE N Hire

Winnie Ng Sunset High School

Loc Nguyen Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Mon September 18, 2023 at 7:40 AM CDT

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.

Experience:

Competing

2018-2022: Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School

2023-Present: NFA-LD at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln [Nuclear Posture]

Coaching

2022: Lab Instructor at NDF

2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

IMPORTANT:

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.

General:

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.

Evidence Exchanges:

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 nlocdebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain. If you are using an email that restricts you from sending to external emails then please use SpeechDrop.

PF:

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.

Progressive PF:

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.

LD:

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 nlocdebate@gmail.com 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

Jacek O'Connel Gallatin Valley Independent

Baran Pasa National Cathedral School (NCS)

Akhil Perla Hire

Last changed on Sat September 23, 2023 at 3:09 PM CDT

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Sun September 17, 2023 at 7:46 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - cool

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Aviva Rosenberg Pittsburgh Allderdice High School

Biranchi Sahu Sunset High School

Mishaal Said Hire

Pallavi Sawant Franklin High School

Brandon Schletzbaum Milpitas High School

Walker Smith Myers Park High School

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 11:59 AM EDT

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely trash.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but at a certain point the sketchier the argument the lower the threshold for response.

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen, and they may shift my perception of the round, although I mainly think crossfires are to benefit the debaters, not the judge. (Also cross IS binding)

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), the threshold for response will be quite low.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose. I will also not look at any cards other judge's call.

- Preferably use an author name and date but if you cite it in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Bonus points for citing it as a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- If there is no response in rebuttal, offense is conceded.

- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline or defense is conceded.

- 1st summary has to frontline or defense is conceded.

- No new offense in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final.

- Arguments and responses that are not in summary do not count in final.

- A framework should be extended in every speech.

- Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to get my ballot.

- I likely will default to the neg if there is no offense left at the end of the round (depends on the resolution).

- I will adopt any speaker points policy for a tournament to make it fair.

- Actual weighing (not just saying "we outweigh on scope") is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing is even better.

- Remember that debate is not about just winning as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

Good luck, have fun.

Zaynab Syed Hire

Aatreya Tewary Cinco Ranch High School

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 3:47 PM EDT

My debate philosophy mirrors that of a regular flow judge but there are a couple specific things you should probably know

1) I guess I'm tech over truth. It's pretty easy to just call your opponents out if they're making a false argument and if you give me pretty clear warranting as to why its untrue I'll buy it as defense.

2) I didn't go super fast when I debated, but speed is okay with me. With that being said, I'm not like a flowing god so if you go super quick I'll probably lose you, but don't worry I'll make it obvious or just yell "speed". also please signpost or else I'm gonna have no clue what's happening

3) I never ran progressive arguments, but a) I'll vote off of theory if it's well explained and actually deserving. i even buy theory in a paragraph format. also, don't just read theory to pick up a ballot; only read it if an actual abuse occurred, but if you just spread through a shell in front of an unsuspecting team that has no clue how to answer it or clearly doesn't know what's happening, im nuking your speaks. b) i have no experience with critical arguments (Ks), but again, if it's well explained and extended, i'll vote on it.

4) my threshold for extensions is kinda high. you need a link and an impact in both the summary and the final focus. also, you gotta extend warrants; not sure why people just seem to forget what those are from time to time.

5) don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.

6) weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round. however, i will evaluate new 1st ff weighing

7) summary and final focus need to be cohesive; i'm not voting on stuff that was new in ff

8) first summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined and its important defense; plus, you have three minutes it can't be that hard now

9) 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline offensive arguments on the case (i.e. turns, disads, etc.); any unresponded offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

10) offensive overviews in general are probably bad for debate and you should not read them in front of me. if you read one in second rebuttal especially, my threshold for responses will be EXTREMELY low. also like 95% of the time you could just take parts from the overview and read as DAs or turns so it really isn't necessary

11) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line you better win the round because your speaks are getting destroyed

12) i won't really feel the need to call for evidence unless its absolutely necessary or you tell me to call for it

13) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents and actually debate instead of screaming the names of research institutions back and forth

14) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume first speaker.

15) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person

17) the last thing i'll say is that, while i will always have a special place in my heart for debate, i know that this activity is not the best sometimes and can be overly toxic and super stressful. i will try my hardest to try to make every debater comfortable and feel welcome and you should do the same for your opponents.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on facebook.

Andrew Thong Bergen County Academies

Last changed on Tue September 12, 2023 at 8:11 PM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain! bergendocs@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below!

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Emilie Torwalt BC Academy

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 2:41 AM MDT

Credentials:

I am a university-level debater with extensive experience both in debating and judging.
The majority of my debating/judging experience is in British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Canadian National Style.
I have broken (judge/debater) and placed in the top 5 speakers in many tournaments on the CUSID West circuit.
have attended many international tournaments including the World University Debating Championships (WUDC), North America University Debating Championships (NAUDC), and North America Parliamentary Debating Championships (NorAms).

How I judge (if you have any specific questions, email me at torwalt@ualberta.ca):

I value analysis in a debate. It is important to fully flesh out your arguments and explain why they are true, why they are likely to happen, and what the impacts of them are. Quality > quantity of arguments
I also highly value explicit weighing in rounds. If I am forced to implicitly weigh arguments, there is a risk that they will be weighed not in your favour. Tell me why your points matter more on the metrics of likelihood, scale, and/or frequency.
My favourite style of debating is case debating. I find these the most interesting, and also that the engagement and clash is most clear in case v. case debate. Explain your case clearly and impact out why it matters more than the other side's case.
K debates: I am okay with K debates, however, I find them more likely to be unclear and more difficult to weigh arguments. If you are running a K v. Policy debate, you must explicitly explain the theory, impacts your opponents' way of thinking, and suggest alternatives. I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. Explain your arguments, and you'll do well :)
Crystallize your winning voting points in your final focus. Make it super clear why I should vote for your side over your opponents'.

General things:

I am not a lay judge, but I am not super familiar with PF debating. Keep in mind that most of my debate jargon/buzzword knowledge comes from the CP and BP circuits.
If you sign-post (roadmap), I will be able to flow better. Please do this.
Speak at a reasonable speed, but since I am a debater, you can go pretty quick and I'll likely catch it. You can spread if you'd like, but don't drop arguments.
I appreciate a sense of humor in debate
If you claim your opponents "dropped an argument" and they actually didn't, I will catch it. My flow is solid.
Do not be homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, or ableist. If this occurs in a round, you will get a very bad speaker score.
If you have accessibility needs, let me know before the round and I will accommodate. I have a disability, so I know what it feels like to be a debater with a disability.
Avoid sweeping generalizations, especially of marginalized communities.

Kate Totz The Blake School

Last changed on Mon June 12, 2023 at 6:41 AM CDT

-- updated for nsda nats 2023 --

I do tend more flay during this tournament - I would deeply prefer a slower, emphasized pace with really good explanations of warrants and arguments. You are welcome to read the below, but it's long and most of it relates to more progressive debate. I'm not opposed to progressive debate at this tournament, but I strongly encourage the 'layification' of progressive debate here. There are times where PF debate SHOULD be easily accessible to the public, and I believe that NSDA Nationals is one of those times.

Congratulations to all for qualifying to this tournament, you should ALL feel amazing just for earning the opportunity to compete at this tournament. Good luck, and speak well!!

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Christian Vasquez The Blake School

Last changed on Wed September 20, 2023 at 6:27 AM CDT

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Kishore Vattikuti BASIS Peoria

Ben Walter Cranbrook

Sadaf Zahoor Milpitas High School

Login to Tabroom:

The Milo Cup at Millard North

2023 — NSDA Campus, NE/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges