Stephen Stewart Memorial Middle and High School Invitational at
2024 — milpitas, CA/US
PF: Varsity Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideCurrent college student at UC Berkeley
Flay judge, please speak slowly and clearly since it has been a while since I have done debate. If I can not understand what you are saying then I will not be able to write it down. Honestly, treat me like a parent judge.
Controversial take: truth>> tech
Make sure to spend a good amount of time weighing impacts and making it super clear to why you win the debate. Warrant out all the responses and do not just card dump.
Time your opponents.
Have a good round everyone.
Lay parent 3rd year judge
Speak relatively slow, explain and weigh, no theory/Ks
Parent
New to Judging Debate
I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.
How I will vote.
1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits. I would greatly appreciate if you could weigh with your impacts on the three scales, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.
Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision
1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.
2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.
3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.
Hey everyone,
My name is Amit Bansal, and I am a lay parent judge. My child does pf, so I have judged in one PF tournament before. However, I don’t have much experience, so I would prefer if you speak slowly so that I can understand you. Don’t use debate jargon, and I look at how you speak to your opponents. Please be respectful, especially in crossfire. Also, it would be nice to have an explanation of the topic, as I am new and likely won’t understand the topic right off the bat.
I will try my best to flow and understand arguments dropped and extended, but I won't be flowing crossfire.
Thanks, and good luck!
Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services
School Affiliations: DVHS
Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years
How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.
Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily
Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3
I am a new judge, so please talk at a moderate speed and would be looking for both style and substance. Please be kind and nice to yourself and your opponents.
I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.
Hi there,
I am a lay judge and I am new to judging speech and debate tournaments. Please speak at a moderate pace. I do not allow spreading.
1. Please time yourselves
2. Please be respectful.
3. No Spreading
4. Please be clear in your communication.
5. I value substance over style, constructive arguments based on evidence, and authenticity.
I am honored to be judging the event and I am really looking forward to learning from your arguments.
I participated in policy debate in high school and college. As a judge, I value quality arguments and analysis over speed or quantity. Please weigh the issues for me and tell me why you should win rather than expect that I will connect the dots for you. I do not prefer a theory debate for its own sake, but I will listen and evaluate such a debate if the participants want to engage it.
As a parent PF judge, I understand the unique dynamics and challenges of adjudicating Public Forum (PF) debate rounds involving young debaters. My role is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants while prioritizing respectful discourse and critical thinking skills development. Below are the guidelines I follow and the expectations I have for debaters in my rounds.
Guidelines:
-
Fairness: Fairness is paramount. I expect debaters to engage in honest argumentation and to refrain from any form of cheating or unfair practices, such as misrepresentation of evidence or spreading misinformation.
-
Respect: Respect for opponents, judges, and the debate space is non-negotiable. I expect debaters to maintain a civil tone throughout the round, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful language.
-
Clarity: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically and concisely, making it easy for judges to follow their line of reasoning.
-
Evidence: Debaters should provide credible evidence to support their claims. I encourage debaters to cite reputable sources and to analyze the evidence effectively within the context of the debate.
-
Time Management: Debaters must manage their time effectively, ensuring that they use their allotted speaking time efficiently and allowing their opponents equal opportunity to present their arguments.
-
Adaptability: I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies and arguments based on their opponents' responses and the flow of the debate round.
-
Engagement: Active engagement with the substance of the resolution is key. Debaters should address the central issues of the debate and respond directly to their opponents' arguments.
-
Sportsmanship: Debaters should display good sportsmanship at all times, accepting defeat gracefully and congratulating their opponents on a well-debated round.
Email: joshanne.chiang@gmail.com
Hi! Please explain thoroughly, signpost, and don't go too fast. And definitely weigh. If I'm not judging PF, I'm probably not that familiar with your event. I can't really follow progressive debate, or at least I won't be able to evaluate your arguments as well. Plans and counterplans outside of PF are fine though.
Please be courteous to your opponents and be equitable/inclusive with your argumentation. I will drop problematic or harmful rhetoric.
I don't flow cross. Please time yourselves.
Feel free to ask me anything!
Current college student at UC Berkeley
Add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com (I will be checking if the cards are cut properly & the factualness of it, but it is your duty to call your opponent's out for it, I can't do the work for you)
Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals & nationals, a trad debater
Tech> truth (if your opponent says the sky is purple, & u don't refute it, on my flow the sky is purple)
I don't flow cross ex, or vote off it. I have not done PF in a while and have no background knowledge of the topics, so pls take this in mind if you plan on spreading, if I can't understand I will not flow it and I don't really like reading speech docs.
Don't just dump cards and blocks, need some warranting to how it interacts and responds to your opponent's case. Frontline or else all responses will be flowed through. If you don't frontline it will be very hard to win.
Weigh, i also love prereqs, metaweighing, etc
Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure (I'm prob judging for Stephen Stewart or CFL, it was normally a pretty trad tournament, lets just have a normal debate for everyone's sake pretty please, CFL was my favorite tournament in high school, it was always chill, pls let's keep it that way)
I am unfamiliar with majority of Ks, so run at your own risk, will try to evaluate the best I can
Time your opps ⏰ (esp prep time)- i will only time if the debate is taking so long im getting tired. Please do not drag on the debate, if you take too long to find or ask for a card it will come out of prep time. Off time road maps should be 10 secs or less.
Speaks: determined on rhetoric, being on time, organization, cross ex, politeness, good partner chemistry!!!
Good luck in your round!! I hope you have fun and enjoy the tournament! Please buy snacks and support my high school's tournament
I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.
I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.
Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.
Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:
1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.
2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)
3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.
4. Do not be rude in cross.
Once again, do not spread.
Have fun!
I am a parent judge.
This is my first year of being a judge.
Important: please state your speech time and roadmap at the beginning of each speech.
Please speak in an appropriate volume and a reasonable pace. Please also use simple English and don't use any inappropriate language. There is no reason to be mean as we are all learning from each other.
I evaluate rounds based on the contents of the arguments, not as much the way they are presented. Please present your arguments clearly to me so I can understand easily.
Have fun!
I have been judging for last 3 years, primarily Public Forum. I have also judged speech, LD and Policy occasionally as needed .
Please speak clearly and at a moderate to fast, but not superfast pace.Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.
Looking forward to an exciting debate.
Welcome debaters! I'm excited to hear your arguments today. Here's what I look for when evaluating rounds:
- Clearly communicate your points avoiding excessive speed or spreading.
- Demonstrate strong presentation skills with effective use of rhetoric, tone, and gentle body language.
- Arguments should be logical, coherent and supported by credible evidence. Provide data and examples to bolster your claims and refute opposing arguments.
- Adhere to debate format including rules and conventions, time limits, and engaging in constructive dialogue with your opponents.
- I expect Fairness and Respect by maintaining professional demeanor and avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language.
Have a great debate!
Hi, I’m a parent judge. I appreciate clarity of speech. Please ensure you support your evidence with right data and elaborate on it. Be engaging in your conversations.
I don't introduce my bias in judgements. I am looking for logical arguments, flow and impact and how they are responded. I would appreciate if you speak at a normal pace.
Hello, this is Shen.
I prefer to see that the debaters back their opinions/arguments with evidence and civility. Speaking clearly to the point is more important than speaking fast.
Have fun.
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
I have participated in speech and debate events as a participant, judge, and coach for many years. I have judged policy debate rounds for the Chicago Debate League. I have judged nearly all NSDA individual speech events and parliamentary debates for APDA and NPDA.
I will generally follow the NSDA judge paradigm guide.
https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023_Judge-Paradigm-Guide_2024-01-02-2-1.pdf
I am a Professor at a business school and a parent judge. Besides the content of what you are speaking I pay close attention to respectful treatment of anyone you are interacting with (your debate partner/opponent). Please speak slowly so that I can listen to (and not just hear!) what you have to say. Rushing to get too many points across without any clarity does not work well for the listener! Speak clearly so that your passion and hard work can shine!
Good luck!
I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.
Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”
TL;DR
I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.
———PART I: SPEECHES———
Signposting:
Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.
Cross:
I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.
Rebuttal:
Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.
Summary:
Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.
Final Focus:
First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.
———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———
Voting:
I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.
Evidence:
Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.
Email Chains:
I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.
Prep Time:
Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.
Speech Times:
These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.
Speed:
I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
Speaks:
Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.
Postrounding:
Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.
Trigger Warnings:
I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).
———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———
You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.
Preferences:
Theory/T - 1
LARP - 1
Kritik - 3
Tricks - 3
High Theory - 4
Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)
Performance - 5 (Strike)
Theory:
I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.
Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.
Kritiks:
I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.
Tricks:
These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.
Everything Else:
Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.
TKO:
If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.
- I have limited experience with judging debates.
-
Pace and Clarity: While I understand the need to convey as much information as possible, clarity is paramount. Please maintain a conversational pace to ensure your arguments are fully comprehensible. Rapid speech that sacrifices understandability will not be effective.
-
Evidence and Commonsense: Before presenting evidence and arguments, consider their logical foundation. Only utilize evidence from sources that are widely recognized for their credibility. Arguments should not only be evidence-backed but also logically sound, passing the 'commonsense test'. Additionally, don't hesitate to apply common sense when questioning evidence-backed arguments. It's important to remember that for every point, evidence can be found to support both pros and cons. Thus, smartly question your opponent's choice and use of arguments.
-
Respectful Engagement: The essence of debate lies in the respectful exchange of ideas. Maintain a respectful demeanor towards your opponents at all times. Engage directly with their arguments, providing constructive counterpoints.
Hey Everyone! I graduated from Presentation High School in 2021, where I spent my four years there mostly specializing in Congressional Debate, but I do have experience competing in PF, World Schools, LD, NX, and Impromptu.
Congress Paradigm
To me, Congressional debate is the perfect marriage of Speech and Debate -- combining the best of both worlds. I value clash and refutations above all since it is, first and foremost, a debate event. That being said, your speaking skills and speech structure are also important. I always enjoy good rhetoric and when debaters drop bars or one liners because it is the perfect opportunity for you to show us your style.
Please use and cite your evidence! I vote mostly based on the warranting you present. Do not make your entire speech an emotional appeal -- you can incorporate some elements of pathos, but you definitely need logic, reason, and evidence to support and back up your claim. I prefer to rank debaters that demonstrate comprehensive understanding of topic knowledge and the impact of the legislation.
During authorships or sponsorships, please lay out the reason you need the legislation before explaining how it improves the status quo, and provide the framework for which to evaluate the debate. Every single speech after the authorship or sponsorship should have refutations. I love when debaters present a unique lens of analysis or perspective that changes the scope of the entire debate, especially during crystals. Congressional debate does not offer as many opportunities to directly engage with others, so cross-examination is crucial for asking methodical questions and providing quality responses that further your perspective or argumentation.
Most importantly, HAVE FUN and be kind to each other. You may refute the arguments of fellow debaters, but do NOT name call or be disrespectful. Always remember your oath to this country and your constituents -- the people who elected you into office to represent them.
Note to Presiding Officers: I expect you to know and adhere to proper procedures and protocols (Robert's Rules of Order) to run a fair and efficient chamber, while ensuring decorum. Do NOT abuse your power or attempt to manipulate procedure to drop others, etc. If you do a great job as a presiding officer, I will rank you.
...and on closing thoughts...Good Luck! & Dad jokes are punny :)
...
Public Forum Paradigm
Yes, I flow. Please provide me with a framework during the constructive speeches and establish why I should favor your framework over the other team's later in the round. That being said, you should still apply your case to both your own and the other teams' frameworks.
If you drop an argument in Summary, do not bring it up in Final Focus because I will not take it into account. I will also not consider any new constructive contentions brought up in Summary and Final Focus. Please show me what worlds look like in the affirmation and negation before you weigh them. You should be weighing and collapsing in Summary. Please terminalize your impacts! I love impact calculus and case turns. Your Final Focus needs to include voter issues; and, please explain their relevance; else what should I vote on?
I expect all debaters to participate in grand cross. I understand that you may want to use that time to prep, but cross examination is still important, even if it does not technically appear on the flow. Please bring up the points you win from cross examination during your speech. Back in my day, PF allotted for 2 minutes of prep time, but you have 3 minutes, so you should do your prep during that extra minute instead.
This goes without saying, but evidence is paramount, so please use and cite your evidence! Also, while my business professor will contend that Cash is King, here, Clash is Key. I appreciate when debaters thoroughly break down and address the warranting of their opponents' argument and prove it to be untrue rather than just tell me that their opponents are wrong. If both sides have evidence, why should I prefer your contention over theirs? Do not expect me to draw the lines for you.
Ultimately, Have a Great Round, be Respectful, and Good Luck!!
I am a first time parent judge.
I am fascinated to hear arguments on a wide range of topics: from economic issues, social issues, technology issues and social justice issues.
Maybe because I have worked in the technology space for some time now, I am perhaps more inclined to hear arguments on issues related to technology and how it is shaping society today. However, I dont want to limit myself to technology related issues only.
In today's world, it is critical to fight through our internal confirmation bias, and really hear arguments from both sides on any issue. I am looking at this as an opportunity for me to improve my listening skills!
I am a parent judge and new to S&D tournament, please talk very slowly and clearly.
My email address for evidence is lihuagu@gmail.com.
I’m a parent lay judge. My son does a lot of debate (PF) but this is my first time judging public forum and only my second time ever judging—the last time was a policy round two years ago which I’m still recovering from.
I will take notes throughout the round, though I don’t know how to flow. “Judge instruction” is very helpful for both you and me. Explain to me how I should evaluate your arguments, and I more than likely will follow instructions.
Do not spread, I will not be able to take notes or understand your arguments well. Make sure to “signpost” so I can take better notes.
Being super aggressive in cross-ex will not give you an advantage with me. Stay polite. I don’t plan to vote off of cross-ex, but it will probably influence me.
Please time your own speeches, cross, and prep time.
I have absolutely no idea on how to judge Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk—I’d think it's fun, but probably would not accurately evaluate it.
Hi debaters,
I am parent judge, my child competed for the PF, I like watching debate and I am looking for following:
- Speak clearly (don't spread!)
- You need to put offense on the other side's argument (Turn)
- You need to frontline your case
- Be respectful to each others
Good luck! Enjoy the debates and your day!
Please feel free to add me to the email chain, my email address: hodyhung@gmail.com
Crossfire is important to me. I want to see competitors having equal speaking time with interaction between each other. Competitors should provide insightful and relevant questions and be respectful. In cross-fire I also want it to flow as well, i.e. the cross and responses have to be related and not orthogonal. In delivery, I want to see eye contact and deliberate clear speech (no rushing or spreading). Please address the judge clearly and confidently. I want to see flow of thought, not disjoint ideas and talking points strung together. For content, I value well-researched content with clear links and subpoints. Concise is always better. For the effort put in I take and send out detailed notes on all aspects of the debate: content, depth and quality, delivery, and crossfire.
Hello there. (Congrats if you get that reference)
Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: ej82669@gmail.com
I'm a sophomore UIUC debater who debated PF in high school.
If you’re here for speech, jump all the way down to the bottom. I’m sorry :((
There's sections for debate, PF, LD, and speech.
DEBATE
As a judge, consider me tech over truth. However, I coach middle schoolers and believe that debate is an educational event. Good research is a big part of that, so I won’t buy problematic arguments that seem to have no basis or understanding of the current situation. (eg US should increase military intervention for orientalist reasons) Otherwise, clean voters and collapses will always win me over. If this doesn’t happen, I will pick apart the flow (against my will), and no one is ever happy when the judge is forced to intervene.
That being said, I am also a debater, so I’ll vote on dropped arguments, dropped weighing, dropped framing, dropped whatever. I’ve always been a second speaker and love listening to rebuttals dumping 7 warranted responses to every single contention (it would be hypocritical for me not to). If there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.
Lastly, if you run a T or K in a JV or novice division, unless it is a T against blatant abuse in the round, I will immediately drop you and your speaks.
Evidence: Know the NSDA and CHSSA rules on evidence.
CHSSA Debate Rules and Regulations
If the opponents call you out on a card you definitely cut 30 seconds ago, I will allow evidence challenges or for them to clown you in all the rest of the speeches for bad evidence. I consider preventing access to a requested card as nonexistent evidence and will absolutely rules in favor of an evidence challenge in that context. I have no tolerance for distortion of the card or dates. Regardless of a challenge, I will drop the card on my flow.
General Points (that I will potentially drop your speaks for):
- Time: Time yourself. If you make the mistake of using a timer and start talking over the ringing, I will drop your speaks, because not only do you know you are going over time, you are consciously choosing to ignore it. Otherwise, I will be running a stopwatch and will put up my phone when you are going over. I will allow you to finish your point, but will not flow any new points.
- Speed: I can handle and almost prefer moderate speed. I can handle spreading, but you must be CLEAR and ENUNCIATE. Otherwise, expect to send me and your opponents a speech doc. If I catch you manipulating it, I will drop your speaks faster than you call your opponents for dropped arguments you didn’t actually make.
- Organization: Off-time roadmaps are great, but if its “I will start on my opponent’s first contention on small businesses, extend the turn, refute their second contention on policing, address the framework…” then no, they aren’t great. Signposting is a MUST. If I lose you on the flow, then good luck extending arguments that I can’t find.
- Clash: If you don’t clash, don’t expect speaks. Debate is the speaking event where opponents actually interact with each other, so I would like to see interaction.
- Weigh: Weigh…please, especially if you have a framework. Saying timeframe, magnitude, and scope is not enough. You can just choose one, and explain why it matters + how it links in to your opponent’s impacts. (eg If mass extinction occurs, you can’t have an economy.)
- Crossfire/Cross-Examination: I don’t flow crossfire/cross-examination. If something important happens, bring it up in your speech. That being said, I don’t tolerate aggressively speaking over the person or using cross as speech time. Cross can get heated, but there’s a difference between yelling at the other person.
I get this is a lot, but the tl;dr is be respectful to your opponent and me. The common courtesies in debate are to make it fun for everyone. For those of you who like being mean >:(, I give out low-speak wins pretty frequently anyway.
Public Forum: (my favorite :D )
Chances are, I have thoroughly researched and debated the topic you are doing, so I will know if you don’t have links or are making things up. That being said, I have a lot higher tolerance for “analysis” or “general knowledge”. I apologize ahead of time if you get an entire paragraph of rfd. I’ve primarily competed in PF, so I will definitely have opinions.
Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, here are a few things I look for:
- Collapsing: While my fatal flaw is going for all of the 6 contentions on both sides of the flow, I’d rather you consolidate and do voters, especially in FF. Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches. I will silently cry if you go line-by-line in FF.
- Frontlining: I expected second rebuttal to frontline. I believe defense is sticky, but a brief extension of it every time is best.
- Weighing: Weighing slaps. Enough said.
- New Arguments/Responses: That’s a no-no in 2nd summary and FF. I will not flow it.
- Progressive Arguments: I am a sucker for topical Ks. I believe Ts are to prevent abuse and improve the debate space, but will not vote on friv T. Because of this, if you run friv T to win a round in JV/novice on a new non-circuit debater, I am not voting for that.
(I love the Robert Chen K though)
- Plans: No…I will drop them.
Lincoln Douglas:
I'm only getting used to college LD, but I work with novice LDers so I will also know if your arguments are very strange, to a lesser degree. Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, I have stolen the following things from my coach’s paradigm (thanks schletz):
- New Arguments/Responses: No new arguments in 1NR and 2AR. I will not flow it. I'm fine with evidence though.
- Theory: Theory works, but I won’t vote on frivolous theory used to avoid responding to your opponent’s argument (especially not if you unabashedly break norms yourself). I view theory as a way of preventing abuse in the debate space and that it should only be used as such. I believe in RVIs so feel free to run them in response.
- Frameworks/VC: They slap. If you provide and defend one but don’t use it, I will evaluate it based on what vague instruction you’ve given me on how to evaluate using the framework…which probably won’t end well. I cannot emphasize enough: YOUR IMPACTS SHOULD ALIGN WITH YOUR FRAMEWORK.
- Kritiks + Phil:I love and appreciate them. Please slow down a bit if it’s super dense.
Speech
I love you guys…I promise. Most of my friends do speech.
A few warnings:
- Respectfulness: I don’t tolerate horsing around or loudly speaking during other competitors’ speeches. Whispering is okay, but do anything more disruptive and I will drop your speaks.
- Timing: Please time yourself. While I will be running a stopwatch, I am terrible at giving time signals. I will allow a stopwatch or someone else’s phone. Having a friend give time signals works too. Refer to tournament rules on grace periods.
- My instinct is to take notes while you’re speaking, so if I don’t look at you, I am so sorry. If I am judging you for IX or NX, your content will be scrutinized because I have a little too much background knowledge on politics.
If you’ve made it to the bottom, have fun and be a cool person. :)
Feel free to ask me questions. I like those.
I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.
Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).
I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.
I am a first time parent judge. As a judge, I prioritize logical structure and solid evidence in arguments. I appreciate a clear, well-organized speaking style and will follow the flow carefully to track how arguments develop throughout the round. My decision will be based strictly on the arguments presented, and I aim to remain as objective as possible.
hi! i'm sky.
please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.
email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.
please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.
tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.
teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).
don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.
now, specifics!
topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.
cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.
evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate arguments without evidence in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
Hello! I have judged several PF rounds and know the general layout of the round, and have some preferences.
- Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
- Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If you are going to spread, do it mindfully. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your argument, and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
- I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.
But most importantly, don't forget to have fun!
I am a parent.
Be clear about your topic. Work on your final focus and summary.
Make sure to maintain consistent speed throughout your session.
Ex PF debater, Have 6 years of PF experience
Don't speed read, if I don't catch your points I won't flow them. Make sure to signpost where you're responding.
I know the rules, so if I catch you cheating you lose my ballot.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, tell me why I vote for you.
keep it civil
Assume I dont know the topic and explain it to me
I love a good definitions and framework debate and at a varsity level simply saying their definition makes no sense or is too limiting will not be acceptable.
I'm a first time lay judge, with no debate experience. I'll take notes based on the round and evaluate based on arguments and how convincing you are. I may call for a card after round if there is something I'd like clarity on. Also, I will not vote based on a point unless it is brought up in a speech, not just in crossfire.
Try not to speak above 275 wpm - pretty much fast conversational speed. Do not spread. I might tell you in between speeches if your speed is too fast.
Introduce your name, speaking position, and side before the round. Time yourself and state how much prep you take. I will give you 15 second grace period and if you go over, I will stop evaluating your argument. Please signpost and have an off-time roadmap.
Pretty much anything goes, as long as you're respectful and decent, especially during cross. I'll try my best to keep things fair and to fully understand both sides.
I won't provide oral RFD. Look to the tab RFD post-round.
I'd like to be a part of the email chain: ethankimyt@gmail.com
Hey! My name is Jennifer (you can call me jenni) and I have no debate experience, so you can think of me as a parent or lay judge. However, I do have some preferences.
1) No racist, homophobic, or derogatory statements/ or arguments.
2) I can handle some speed, but don't expect me to understand you if you're reading 300 wpm.
3) Organize your speeches clearly so I can keep track of your arguments.
4) Don't expect me to understand any progressive arguments like theory. I will not evaluate it.
5) Please manage your time yourselves.
Otherwise, I will try my best to take good quality notes throughout the entire debate. Have fun!
I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, thoughtfully and respectfully to your opponents.
I will vote based on whoever has the better arguments that "stand" at the end of the round.
Any sort of Discriminatory or hateful content will automatically result in a loss for that team. Please be respectful!
Good Luck!
Hello Debaters,
I evaluate winners based on :
- clarity / clear arguments
- believable claims
- strong rebuttals
- clean extensions
Evidence and reasoning- quality and relevance of the evidence provided
Persuasiveness- impactfully argued the case and influenced my understanding of the topic.
Speaking skills- loud and not super fast
Clarity and organization- clarity in debate structure and easier flow
Please speak coherently. I will be looking for the most significant arguments and then logical responses. I look for good and thoughtful delivery.
I am a parent-judge for an MVLA student, and a software engineer.
TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). For the last 6 years, actively judging open/varsity Parli (2018 - 2022) and PF (2022+) with occasional LD & Policy rounds. Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.
General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.
If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com
==============================================
PF Debate Notes:
I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps two dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.
- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.
- I am fine with speed, but if you're going faster it's best if you have clear (and short) tags for your arguments (sentence long tags are hard to flow at speed) and even if there is a shared evidence/email chain in the round, please enunciate while reading evidence (I may not have time to read the evidence after your speech, best if I can understand it during your speech). If you are going too fast for me, I will call clear or slow. I also expect any team going fast to respond to clear or slow called by the other team.
- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.
- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.
- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).
- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.
- I'm skeptical of K's in PF. While I am open to K's in general (and speed in general), I do listen carefully to arguments regarding the role of the ballot and linkage to the particular topic/round/case. And, I expect teams running K's to understand and clearly defend those arguments. As PF is (in theory) supposed to be for a lay audience, I'm skeptical of any "educational" justification of K's read at high speed (often with hard to understand terminology) in PF. Wouldn't it be more educational (for the other team, judge, and any audience members) to run them in policy or circuit LD where you have more time and other teams, judges, and audience members who regularly hear high speed rounds (and are more likely to be familiar with the often obscure terminology used in K's)? For PF, I suspect you'd be better off running a Kritikal disadvantage/advantage than a full blown K.
==============================================
Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):
** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.
Default Framework:
In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.
Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.
With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.
Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.
Theory:
Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).
Speed:
As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.
Kritiks:
K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.
Counterplans:
Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.
Dropped Arguments:
I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.
New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:
I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.
Tag Teaming:
Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.
Speaker Location:
Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.
==============================================
Policy Debate Notes:
- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.
- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.
- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.
- I know very little K literature.
- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.
- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.
==========================================
Experience:
My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.
MILPITAS: Assume I don't know any super specific acronyms or anything, so please explain at least once before you start using jargon.
debated as Harker ML/LM, quartered at stoc 2023
email for chain: 24adrianl@alumni.harker.org(pls set up before round)
paradigm heavily inspired by max xing :)
tldr; tech > truth, will not intervene (as cognitive biases allow), warrant + extend + WEIGH, tread carefully with theory/K's
I'll vote off pretty much whatever, unless it's anything -ist (L20). Extend each part of your argument with a warrant and comparatively weigh it. Please weigh, nobody weighs enough in PF.
general
I expect speech docs if you're going to start spreading. I will clear you only if I genuinely have no idea what you're saying.
TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early so we can all go and eat food. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you get L20s.
Please don't yell at each other in cross—these were some of my least favorite parts of rounds when I debated and it's not fun for anyone.
Please do ask me questions if you have any. As a debater I always learned a ton from my judges and I hope I can do the same for y'all.
technical stuff(mostly stolen from max)
Second rebuttal needs to frontline (weighing STRONGLY encouraged).
Defense isn't sticky -- must be extended in each speech.
Weighing functions like offense -- must be responded to in the next speech or it's dropped.
Weighing must be comparative, not just spamming buzzwords.
The earlier weighing starts, the better as there's more clash and the collapse becomes cleaner.
Speaking of collapse, PLEASE collapse. Uncollapsed rounds are almost universally messy, incomplete, and poorly weighed.
COMPARE WEIGHING. It's impossible to resolve clash when there's competing yet uncompared weighing arguments, which makes me very sad.
Probability isn't weighing, if you win your link you win that it happens. Probability weighing is usually just defense anyway (shoutout Zaid Vellani).
If there's clash I need to resolve on a certain argument, I'll look elsewhere on the flow as resolving clash is definitionally intervention. It will also make me very sad. You can avoid upsetting me by doing comparative analysis!
If there's no offense on the flow at the end of the round, I'll presume. Absent presumption warrants, I presume the status quo.
theory/progressive debate
I generally think it's a little abusive to drop these kinds of args on teams who are newer to debate. WITH THAT SAID, I do think norms such as disclosure and not paraphrasing are REALLY GOOD, so my threshold to vote for something like disclosure theory will be MUCH lower. Feel free to go hard on theory that actually enforces good norms.
K's are okay, I never ran them and rarely ran into them for what I think is good reason. In any case, I think PF debaters aren't great at running K's anyways so do tread carefully and make sure everything is very well explained. I'll most likely be at least a little confused if you do run K's so I would generally avoid it. And please send speech docs.
If you understand and properly run my roommate'sduality K I'll probably be entertained.
I never ran trix or friv theory in hs, nor do I think they're a good idea. It feels pretty abusive to me, so my threshold to vote for these kinds of arguments will be SIGNIFICANTLY higher. But, still, if you want to run trix or whatever, just make sure you explain things to me very clearly throughout the round.
I am Parent lay judge. English is not my first language so please speak at a slower pace. Make sure to have good logic and reasoning with lots of data and evidence.
I prefer debaters presenting, reinforcing their arguments and rebutting their opponents’ arguments with solid logic and reasoning as well as authorized evidences.
I value respectful and strong discourse in crossfire, but not rude or overpowering. I don’t like spreading.
Thanks and good luck,
Lanyun Liu
Hello, I am a parent judge that has judged in several tournaments in the past.
When speaking:
I look for the speaker to be confident, but not condescending in any way. Please do not spread, I will not accept jargon. If I can't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take notes. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times.
Argumentation:
I will evaluate arguments based on how clear and effective they are. I will not be persuaded by arguments that are not clearly backed up. I will be voting for the team with stronger arguments and impacts.
Theory:
Please do not introduce theory!
Plans:
Don't introduce any if you are a Public Forum Debater
Best of luck to everyone!
I am a new parent judge. I will try my best to judge base on your argument, reasoning and logic. Delivery is also very important. Please speak clearly with confidence. Thank you!
I am new to speech and debate, and have no experience being a speech and debate judge before.
Please speak clearly and at a moderate pace. I will try my best.
Looking forward to the coming events.
This is my fifth time judging public forum. I have a daughter that participates in public forum so I am familiar with the debate process.
Hi all! Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:
-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded
-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)
-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches
--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3: claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.
--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here
-I try to be tech>truth but if I hear a repeated card that sounds too good to be true, I’ll call for evidence at the end of the round. If it’s misconstrued, it won’t affect my decision unless your opponents brought it up during the round. However, your speaks won't do great so please don’t lie :/
-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.)
-I can't handle too much speed. If you're spreading (please try not to), signpost clearly
-Don’t paraphrase evidence
-If your opponents call for cards and they don't receive it within 2 minutes, it may affect your speaker points and I'll allow your opponents to prep
Feel free to ask any questions before the round! You can also add me to any email chain: 22melodyl@alumni.harker.org. Looking forward to a fun round :)
Don't talk fast, drink water, enunciate, and be confident. I follow the flow of the debate very closely and I appreciate reference citations and more current evidence.
i am also extremely focused on seeing good behavior and respect by both teams to each other. Please maintain respect courtesy and good behavior and good sportspersonship. This is extremely important to me
I enjoy long walks, watching football on sundays and con limon corn nuts while I am judging as a light snack
good luck to all
General
- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear
- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic
- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves
- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com
- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.
- Flay/treat me more lay
- Send me your cases
Arguments/ Debate etc.
I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.
Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.
I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.
Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.
I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.
Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.
As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.
You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.
I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.
I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)
Speaks usually from 28+
Good luck, be kind, happy debating!
Judging:
I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.
1. The topic/Message being made clear
2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed
3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate
4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known
5. Points being correctly attacked and built up
6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions
Speech:
I judge based off of:
1. Topic/Message made clear
2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story
3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments
4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene
5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.
About me:
Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.
Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com
I'm a lay, parent judge-- please do not spread and refrain from theory.
I will be flowing the round to the best of my ability. Please avoid reading new arguments in summary and final focus.
I'm looking for a balance of skilled articulation, logical arguments, and well-thought-out refutations. Also, please weigh your arguments and do the comparative for me. Please be respectful during cross; do not speak over or yell at your opponents.
I'm excited to be here, have fun debating!
I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.
Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)
Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).
Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.
Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org
Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm
_____________________
Public Forum Paradigm
_____________________
SHORT VERSION
- If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
- Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
- Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
- Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
- Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
- No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
- I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.
DETAILED VERSION
(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)
1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension
If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. you not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd.
2. Offense defense
Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.
3. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech
This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.
First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.
Several caveats to this general rule:
1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties
2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,
3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.
4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.
Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.
4. Don't Paraphrase
It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).
5. Narrow the round
It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.
6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.
1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.
2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.
In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.
6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.
Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.
7. Theory
I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.
Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.
My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:
Fiat & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can"offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. That also arguably leaves open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a CF question to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.
Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it, or kick out of it properly. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.
Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.
Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.
Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.
Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.
Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.
Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.
8. Critical Arguments
In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:
A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variant on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alt definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.
B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.
9. Crossfire
If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.
10. Speaker points
See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.
11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic
Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.
12. Speed
Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.
________________________
Policy Paradigm
________________________
I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.
Overview:
Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.
Topicality:
I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.
Theory:
If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.
CPs:
Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.
Disads:
Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.
Criticisms:
I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.
Random:
I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.
________________________
Parli Paradigm
________________________
Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.
First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.
Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.
I'll go speech by speech.
1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?
1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.
2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.
Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.
Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.
I debated VPF all four years of high school. I did speech my senior year and dabbled in LD.
If I'm judging parli, consider me lay, I am familiar with the basics and that's about it. If it's PF, consider me flay.
I'll keep it short, but feel free to ask me any questions you have, no questions are stupid questions :)
Respect is key. It is your job to know the difference between strong and aggressive, and between assertive and disrespectful. Disrespectful crossfires are painful to listen to. I pay attention to cross, but if you want it to end up on my flow you should repeat it in your next speech.
I'm fine with speed as long as it's clear, but I don't appreciate "scaring" your opponents with speed. Debate is about competing at an intellectual level, not an auditory comprehension level.
You should collapse, it will make everyone's life easier. I vote on what you say, not on what I know. Extensions are important if you want me to vote on it. Extensions should be substantial and clear (not tag lines only). If you don't sign post you won't do well in front of me.
Don't run theory just for the sake of running theory. I hate bad theory, so if you're going to do it, make it good. IMO, Ks don't belong in PF.
I can tell if you are stealing time. No really, I can. If 3 minutes of prep isn’t enough for you, switch to parli. Stealing prep is disrespectful to everyone in the room. That’s not to say not to exchange evidence, absolutely call for cards if you feel you need to. If cards aren’t sent in a timely manner I will reduce points, and if card calling is excessive I will do the same. Don't be afraid to ask for flex prep.
WEIGH. If you’re not weighing impacts, there’s nothing for me to vote off of. If you take anything from this paradigm make it that. If you and your opponents aren’t using the same weighing metric, you should also be weighing metrics
I don't keep track of time, that's up to you. Feel free to post-round as long as it's respectful.
Email: antoniaminion@berkeley.edu
Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!
Hello Debaters,
It will be great if all of you can be respectful and maintain a good debating environment. Please speak clearly and to the context.
Hi everyone,
My name is Namrata Nanda. I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging both speech and debate for a year or so for DVHS. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. I have also judged speech and Parliamentary Debate, and I have a daughter who does Public Forum. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:
Speaks:
Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better ????
Ethics:
Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.
How to win:
Tech>truth
As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.
Timing:
I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.
CX:
I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).
Debate terminology:
Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.
FF2:
If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.
RFD:
I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.
Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!
she/her
No Spreading.
Please be clear and explain your argument and importance in the round. Clarity is more important than responding to all the arguments. I would rather have you explain lesser arguments clearly than skim over all the arguments.
Explain why I have to vote for you.
I would prefer you to share your cases with me so that it is easier for me to follow.
Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.
Hi! This is my first time judging, so please make the debate/speech easy to follow. I’ll do my best to evaluate each argument fairly, so do a good job of breaking the down the debate and summing up the points that were brought up. Show me a clear path to the ballot for your team.
Also speak slowly and define any terms, don't expect me to know what you are talking about.
#notopicknowledgewarrior
I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not use debate jargon.
Please be respectful to your opponents during the round.
I will vote for the team that has the most convincing argument and evidence to back it up, so do not run any illogical arguments.
Hello, my name is Uma Paleti, and this is my first time judging in person. I’m still learning the ropes of debate, so I appreciate concise and straightforward arguments. Please avoid using theory in your debates; I prefer to focus on the core arguments and their impacts. Please speak at a consistent regular pace and try not to spread your arguments.
Feel free to set up an email chain on your own accord to facilitate communication. When presenting your case, remember to show confidence in your arguments and be clear about your reasoning.
I’ll be looking for mechanisms like weighing and impact analysis, so make sure to emphasize those in your speeches. I hope for a fruitful and fair debate from both sides. Best of luck to everyone!
As a judge, my primary focus is on the effectiveness of message delivery and the debater's presentation skills. It's essential for debaters to engage with their audience and judges through confident and dynamic delivery. While I understand the necessity of referring to prewritten statements to ensure accuracy and coherence, excessive reliance on these notes can detract from the overall impact of the argument.
Key Aspects of Effective Delivery:
1. **Eye Contact**: Maintaining eye contact demonstrates confidence and helps in connecting with the audience and judges. It's understandable to glance at notes for reference, but constant reading from the paper may give the impression of being underprepared.
2. **Vocal Delivery**: The ability to modulate voice, pace, and tone is crucial. It not only aids in emphasizing key points but also keeps the audience engaged throughout the debate.
3. **Body Language**: Non-verbal cues, such as gestures and posture, play a significant role in reinforcing arguments. They should be natural and complement the verbal message.
4. **Engagement**: Effective debaters interact with their content and audience. This can include responding to the dynamics of the debate, demonstrating flexibility in argumentation, and showing genuine passion for the topic.
5. **Preparedness**: While occasional reference to notes is acceptable, debaters should exhibit a thorough understanding of their material. Frequent reading from scripts may suggest a lack of familiarity with the content.
Evaluation Criteria:
- **Clarity and Structure**: Arguments should be clearly articulated and logically structured. This includes a coherent progression of ideas and effective use of evidence and examples.
- **Persuasiveness**: The ability to persuade, not just through logic and evidence but also through the strength of presentation. This involves making a compelling case to the audience and judges.
- **Adaptability**: Demonstrating adaptability in addressing counterarguments and navigating the debate's flow while maintaining a strong presence.
Conclusion:
While content and argumentation are undoubtedly important, the power of presentation cannot be overstated. A debater's ability to deliver their message with confidence, clarity, and engagement significantly enhances the persuasiveness of their arguments. My judging will lean towards debaters who skillfully balance the substance of their arguments with superior presentation skills, marking a comprehensive approach to debate.
I am a parent who participates in judging. I started doing this as my daughter enrolled in speech and debate and I realized that this is a good way for me to learn while she is enrolled in the program. Professionally being on the program management side for over two decades I noticed that I am a keen listener, like detail oriented statements with facts associated, looks for enthusiasm, participation spirit along with time management orientation. When judging I am looking for students with high confidence, readiness and team work. I wish all the teams and participants good luck for their competitions.
I am a lay judge. Would like to provide constructive feedback.
I am a parent Judge . I'll be looking for clear and organized communication, logical argument structure, and strong, compelling evidence, as well as effective refutation of opposing points. Confidence and persuasive body language will also make a strong impression.
Stay focused on the central topic, avoid unnecessary spreading, and best of luck to all participants!"
I am the parent of a high-schooler (freshman). Although I've never personally participated in Speech & Debate competitions in the USA, my son's interest in Speech & Debate at his school introduced me to judging. Upon learning more, I especially found the various types of debates/formats intriguing & feel that hearing different arguments expands your mind to appreciate a multitude of perspectives.
Please consider me a lay parent judge, who has only ever judged Public Forum debates.
I consciously attempt to de-bias myself by checking my pre-conceived notions of the topic being debated at the door, and rely only on what's being presented. I attempt to flow and/or take notes during debates.
I give importance to relevant evidence and sound reasoning for arguments.
I also place great emphasis on summarization & final focus - so highlight the areas you think you addressed best over the course of the debate.
Lastly, please be respectful of your opponents.
Hello all!
In my 5 years of judging debates (particularly PF) as a parent, I've developed a straightforward approach to judging. I believe in the importance of clear, evidence-based arguments and respectful interaction.
Rather than overwhelming with quantity, I value the depth and quality of the points made (no spreading!). I enjoy seeing debaters engage in thoughtful discussion during crossfire and creating clash throughout the round.
When it comes to evidence, reading card after card without impacts is ineffective, and I appreciate concise, well-supported claims. My aim as a judge is simple: to provide a fair, constructive evaluation and to foster an environment where debaters can showcase their skills and grow in their understanding of the topics at hand.
I am a fellow parent and has a very little experience judging PF and speech tournaments. Expecatations are very less to speaking clearly and slowly , explaining key points or terms as understandable to common audiences . Stating your sides politely . Good contentions and tactful rebuttals are a value add .
Expecting a good decorum among debaters!
Regarding general norms, I look for debaters to be respectful and kind to each other in round.
For debate specifically:
NO SPREADING!!! I am a parent judge and will not tolerate spreading. Argument wise, run anything you want: any K’s, counter plans or topicality arguments are fine with me. Just make sure to explain all of your arguments clearly as you read them. I judge based on the flow - so make sure to respond to all of your opponents arguments and defend all of your own. Furthermore, make sure to extend everything as I will not grant you full access to a contention when voting that is not fully and cleanly extended. Evidence is also important. If you make a claim then I expect you to have sufficient evidence to back it up. Evidence relevancy and recency might become a factor that decides my ballot. I wish all debaters the best of luck!!!
Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com
OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.
Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.
Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.
UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.
Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.
LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.
I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^
UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com
For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.
Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.
anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.
I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.
I will be flowing.
Good luck !
I am a parent PF judge.
I will try to flow. Don't speak too fast and speak clearly if you want me to follow your contentions. Don't be rude.
## About Me
- Pronouns: He/Him
- BSBA Finance + Pre-law student at USC
- Experienced in Varsity Public Forum (Dougherty Valley SD) and Impromptu
- PF debater for over 5 years, 17 bids (11 gold)
- 2023-2024 Gold Bid leader
- 9th at NSDA Nationals 2024
- GTOC 3x, NSDA 2X, CA States 2X
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe, etc; Finalist: Milpitas; Semis: Cal RR, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, etc
- Peaked #2
- Email: ivan.binds@gmail.com
## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 110%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory, etc
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred
## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want + Sit/Stand (No Preference)
- Be as assertive as you like
## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I've never had to flow of the doc in 4 years so we should be good
## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 5 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred
## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns
### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)
### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New meta*weighing allowed if ops weighing was introduced in 2nd summary, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated
## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight
## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence (at that point just send entire docs)
- Don't steal prep (I won't care unless the ops call you out)
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech for higher speaks
- If chosen to flash cards, time yourself + Ops when reading them
## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with Ks and theory
- Default: Theory > K > Case (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds obv.
- Don't just read tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round
- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIs if both teams agree.
- I've voted for anything, even friv theory (ie: water bottle theory)
## Speaks
- Generally high (above 29, 99.99% of the time)
- Docked for:
- Going 10 seconds over time (Time your ops please)
- Reading a shell you violate
- Humor is appreciated and can boost speaks
## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab
## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For 30 speaks, provide me with water or some drink.
Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle any substance rounds as well. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times (or whoever gives good warrants) Feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications. I had a longer paradigm before but ChatGPT has crystallized it pretty well :).
## Last thoughts: Have fun; you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.
I'm a parent judge with no experience judging. Please:
- Quick off-time roadmaps before each speech
- Be respectful during rounds and crossfire
- Don't use debate jargon.
- Speak at an understandable pace and clearly. Don't spread or speak too fast. I can only judge based on what I understand and hear.
Speak slow and to the point. I am hard of hearing. First time judge
|------|-----------------------------------|
Me Lay Tech
Newer parent judge, please speak slow.
Hello, my name is Suzanna Sinapyan. I graduated from Woodbury University with a Masters in Business Administration.
I've judged several PF rounds and have some preferences when it comes to rounds.
- Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
- Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If I cannot understand you, speaker points might be docked. If you choose to spread, keep it at an understandable pace and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
- I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.
Revathy Sivakumar
Experience Level: Parent judge with a basic understanding of public forum debate.
Key Priorities:
-
Clarity and Structure: I value clear and organized arguments. Debaters should present their cases logically, with well-defined claims, warrants, and impacts.
-
Evidence Quality: Strong evidence is crucial. Use credible sources and real-world examples to back up claims. I’ll look for well-researched information that enhances arguments.
-
Engagement and Interaction: I appreciate active engagement during crossfire. Debaters should ask questions that probe their opponent’s arguments and respond thoughtfully.
-
Rebuttals: Effective rebuttals are essential. Debaters should directly address their opponent’s points, providing counterarguments that demonstrate critical thinking.
-
Persuasiveness: Overall persuasiveness matters. This includes logical reasoning, emotional appeals, and the debater’s delivery. Confidence and composure can make a difference.
-
Respectful Discourse: Respect and sportsmanship are vital. I expect debaters to treat each other courteously, even when disagreeing.
Flowing: I will flow the debate, keeping track of arguments and responses. If you present a new point in your final speeches, be sure to tie it back to the debate for clarity.
Decision-Making: My decision will be based on who provided the stronger case overall. I will weigh the clarity of arguments, quality of evidence, and effectiveness of rebuttals.
I’m here to learn as much as to judge. I appreciate debaters who are passionate and engaged with the topic. Remember, it’s not just about winning, but about developing your skills and learning from the experience. Good luck!
I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.
Hello Competitors!
I’m a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate rounds.
Here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Please don't rush or spread. I like to take notes, and if I’m unable to, you're likely speaking too fast.
- Be clear in your explanations. Assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic.
- Maintain respect. Avoid any language that is racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.
I value well-organized content and clear communication, especially when supported by real-world examples. Engaging the audience with gestures, vocal variety, movement, and expression also helps enhance your delivery.
I prefer a roadmap before the time starts, as it helps both me and the audience navigate the speech, ensuring clear organization and structure.
A typical roadmap might look like this:
- In a constructive speech, the roadmap lays out the order of the main contentions (key arguments) to be presented.
- In a rebuttal or closing speech, it highlights which arguments will be defended, refuted, or extended, and in what order.
I have great respect for each of you. Your hard work and dedication are truly impressive, and I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.
Here are key metrics I consider judging PF debate:
1. Clash of Arguments- Argumentation: Evaluate the strength of each team's arguments and how effectively they support their claims.
- Clash: Pay attention to how well the teams engage with each other's arguments. Do they directly respond to the opposing team's points or just repeat their case?
- Impact Calculus: Assess how well the teams explain the impact of their arguments. Strong debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., economic, social, etc.) outweigh the opponent’s impacts.
- Quality of Evidence: Consider how credible, relevant, and well-explained the evidence is. Are the sources reliable? Do they back up key points?
- Warranting: Does the team clearly explain how their evidence connects to their arguments and conclusions?
- Presentation Style: How clearly and confidently do the debaters present their case? Are their speeches easy to follow, or do they rush or use unclear language?
- Roadmaps: Are roadmaps used effectively to guide the judge and audience through the speech?
- Cross-Examination: During cross-examination, does the questioning team ask sharp, relevant questions that highlight weaknesses? Does the answering team remain composed and give clear responses?
- Framework (if provided): Some teams will present a framework—a lens through which to evaluate the debate (e.g., economic benefits, human rights). Consider how well each team aligns their arguments with this framework.
- Weighing Mechanisms: If both teams provide competing frameworks or ways to weigh impacts, evaluate which one is more convincing and why.
- Defense: Are teams successfully defending their own arguments against attacks?
- Offense: Do they effectively dismantle the opposing team’s case, showing why it’s flawed or less impactful?
- Extensions: Are the teams extending their key arguments throughout the debate, maintaining their importance and relevance?
- Impact Weighing: Good debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., reducing poverty, saving lives, protecting the environment) are more important than their opponents’. They should also compare the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of their impacts.
- Conceded Impacts: If a team concedes an argument or fails to respond, that may be a major point in favor of the opposing team.
- Big Picture: Which team tells a more compelling story overall? This includes how well they package their arguments and how cohesive their overall narrative is.
- Consistency: Were the arguments consistent throughout the debate, or did they contradict themselves or shift their positions?
- Etiquette and Respect: A professional, respectful attitude is important. Teams should engage in civil discourse, not resort to ad hominem attacks or unprofessional behavior.
- Strategy: Consider the strategy used by each team. Did they focus on the most important issues or get bogged down in irrelevant details?
After the final speeches, as a judge, I weigh the arguments, evidence, and impacts presented by both teams. The winning team should be the one that best fulfills the metrics above and presents a stronger overall case within the framework of the debate.
While personal preferences on speaking style or argument structure may vary, staying focused on these objective metrics will help me render a fair and balanced decision.
Best of luck!
(He/Him)
I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.
I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.
I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.
I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.
I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.
I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.
Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.
4 years of pf
Send cases and rebuttal docs w cut cards
Preflow n flip n everything before round
If you are flight 2 make sure everything is ready before flt 1 ends, i dont like wasting time
If the round ends within 40 mins after the scheduled start time then I will give block 30s
Do something fun
I've read Theory, Ks, and Tricks but read whatever you can explain clearly. Even if I know what argument you are trying to make I won't do any work for you. That being said even if you pull smth I'm not familiar with like a unique K or phil I'll vote off of it if u explain it well.
Speed is fine but hella annoying. If I miss something that's on you. If I were you, I wouldn't because I am bored and generally uninterested
If the round is too unclear for me, i'm not even gonna want to listen to the backhalf when you try to slow it down, im just gonna flip a coin or vote on vibes
Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.
tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
Cultural Competency Certificate
Please make your contention loud and clearly.
Regular speed would be ideal.
Love debate.
Hello, I am a parent judge. English is not my first language. Therefore, please speak clearly at moderate pace so that I can keep up with what you are saying. In addition, please try to use less debate vocabulary. When you make a point, please make it clear what you are referring to. It makes it easier for me to follow.
You can add me to your email chain.
Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have a fun time!
Speak at moderate conversational pace, be clear, so it will be easy for me to follow along with you.
I prefer logical and persuasive arguments. Ensure that your arguments are well-structured and supported with enough evidence. Please use quantitative data to support your arguments where possible. You can keep a track of time for each round, a little overtime is ok but don't be greedy.
Be Respectful, have fun!
I am new to judging speech and debate tournaments.
Here are my general preferences across formats:
- Use clear pronunciation and speak at moderate rate
- Emphasize important points at the end of your speeches
- I value and focus on quality of arguments and tend to put substance over style
- No personal attacks on your opponent or trying to shut them down or drown them out while they are speaking. Be kind.
- Prefer high quality logical analysis and clear and complete claim-warrant-evidence arguments
I wanted to share my inputs to better judge for debaters as the kids have put their hard work.
1) Usually its hard to understand what the participating kids say because they usually rush through their debate content, they have prepared, in order to finish in the defined timeline.
2) If they are using a specific term in their practice or if a term is being used in the topic of debate, they should give one line reference/define if needed, so we as Judges get the context.
(pls remember that we are not suppose to learn the topic beforehand so we do not get biased).
3) If the kid has already responded to a question during crossfire, do not repeat the same question to the kid unless has not answered properly OR mention the reason why the same question is repeated.
(repeating the same question to summarize in the end or ask igain inthe 2nd round shows that the kid who asked the question repeatedly, inspite does not have any thing else to strengthen their position).
I am a new judge, so please talk at a moderate speed. I flow somewhat and I value your speaking styles. I would like you be kind and nice to opponents.
Please time yourselves and each other.
I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread.
Time yourself and your opponents.
I have served as a judge for debate for four years and I prefer slower speech with proper short pauses.
For congressional debate, I would love to see new arguments that really advance the debate.
For speech, I prefer the structured approach with emphasis and rigor logic.
Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.
Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com
I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.
- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).
- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.
- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.
- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.
- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.
- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.
- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.
Non-substance (prefer not to judge)
Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.
Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.
Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.
Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!
debated under harker wx/harker xa
email for chain: max_xing@brown.edu
tldr: tech > truth, warrant + extend + weigh comparatively. also call me max not judge
I'll vote off whatever, unless it's anything -ist (L20). Extend each part of your argument, with a warrant and comparatively weigh it.
general
Please send a speech doc before your speech, if you don't you might risk me missing stuff. That said, I'm decently good with speed but I won't hesitate to clear you.
TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
Skip grand cross if everyone's chill w it, just take 1 min prep
I won't listen or flow any cross, so if you want me to flow something tell me in the next speech.
Time yourself but I'll stop flowing like 10 seconds after.
Debate's a game, play to win and have fun.
technical stuff
Second rebuttal needs to frontline or it's dropped
Defense isn't sticky -- must be extended in each speech
Weighing functions like offense -- must be responded to in the next speech or it's dropped
Read whatever you want in rebuttal (DA's, Advantages, Overviews, etc)
Weighing must be comparative, not just spamming buzzwords
The earlier weighing starts, the better as there's more clash and the collapse becomes cleaner
Compare weighing, it's impossible to resolve clash when there's competing yet unresolved weighing arguments
Probability isn't weighing, if you win your link you win that it happens. Probability weighing is usually just defense anyway
If there's clash I need to resolve on a certain argument, I'll look elsewhere on the flow as resolving clash is definitionally intervention. You can avoid this very easily by doing comparative analysis wherever necessary
If there's no offense on the flow at the end of the round, I'll presume. Absent presumption warrants, I presume loser of coin flip.
progressive stuff
I understand progressive stuff but I'm honestly not good the deeper it gets. I'm decently good at evaluating theory, Ks are okay and I really dislike tricks. Pls don't run tricks. Thanks.
Hi,
I am a parent Judge with some prior debate experience.
tech over truth (If I understand you)
1) I don't take much notes, therefore, you must explicitly go for ONE argument by the latter speeches to make things simpler(MAKE THIS OBVIOUS)
2) I highly value simplicity and directness. This means
a) Do not use excessive jargon
b) you may speak fast, but make sure you enunciate. DON'T MUMBLE
c) Do not run very technical/complex arguments
d) I have to understand your argument for me to vote for you
3) Be respectable to everyone and have fun
Good Luck! Try your best!
Hi, I'm Fan.
I am a Lay parent judge with no background in pf debate.
Truth over tech unless you are able to really implicate and explain it well. (most people aren't able to, and that's fine :) ).
mainly I care about these 3 things:
1) Maintain clarity and don't speak excessively fast. Your arguments don't mean anything if I can't understand what you are saying
2) structure your speech in a way that is easy to understand, don't jump around all over the flow.
3) Have fun and be respectable towards everyone
Good Luck!
Written by someone else.
I’m a parent/lay judge. Please speak clearly and avoid jargon.
Convince me.
I am an experienced judge. Please speak clearly and weigh your arguments. Remember to be respectful and have fun!
Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.
2024- 2/4/2024
I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.
General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.
World Crafting:
Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.
Argument Framing:
Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.
The K:
I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.
Theory:
Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.
Tech vs. Truth:
Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.
Rudeness is a No-Go:
Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real
Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:
Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.
Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:
Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.
Voting Issues:
Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal
TL;DR
Be clear
Weigh
Impact calculus
>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<
2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it
ask questions
My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...
for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later
1. yes, i flow
2. yes, speed is fine
3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )
4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running
5. ask questions
About me:
What I do: Second (2nd) year law student at Kline (with a primary focus on property law, environmental law, and energy law). Coach here and there.
What I’ve done: Debated for four (4) years in high school (LD/CX), three (3) years in college (LD/NPDA/BP), and coached here and there.
Please: Add me to the email chain thanexzeeh@gmail.com.
How I judge:
i) Top-level – how you get me to vote for you: debate is a game of a “clash of the issue[s]”. Every argument requires me, the judge, to address an issue (e.g., “whether the negatives’ framework argument creates a better vision for debate and if not whether the affirmative is winning a sufficient causal link between the uniqueness debate and the internal link chain to the impact” The clearer you establish: a) what the issue[s] is(are) and; b) how I should evaluate the issue, the easier it’s going to be for me to vote for you. The best debaters know which issues they’re winning, they go for that issue, and then tell the judge why the judge should evaluate that issue as an a-priori issue. On arguments, go for whatever - "arguments are arguments" issues on the limits and scope of those issues are determined on a round-to-round basis.
ii) Technical stuff:
a) if you don’t extend a card or argument through the flow, it doesn’t exist post-round (this requires you to analyze and be selective in what you’re advocating for by identifying where you're ahead).
b) I defer to what the evidence says and not what the debaters claim it says – in other words, I “stick to the four corners of the evidence”.
iii) Speed: If I can’t understand you, I’ll say clear. If I can’t understand you, I’ll say clear. I will say clear a couple to a few times, and after that, I’ll do my best to flow, but no promise I’ll be able to understand what you're saying.
iv) Preference of arguments: Arguments are arguments. Issues such as “Does policymaking come prior to subject formation” or “Is the affirmative’s topicality reasonable” are to be determined on a round-to-round basis.
v) Topicality: I defer to the reasonable definition of a word in the resolution based on how a reasonably prudent person in the debate community would come to understand that definition.
vi) FRAMEWORK (emphasis added): if there’s a clash of framework, the first issue I will almost always determine is whether the affirmative or negative controls framework given the offensive, benefits, etc. of the application of that framework. Whoever controls the framework, controls the debate.
vii) The kritik: see subpoint vi. Explain the academic[s] meaning and purpose behind the kritik. I most likely don’t know the literature base the argument is derived from.
viii) Conditionality: Policy debate, two (2) max; LD, one (1) max; PF, what are you doing?
Last Updated: 01/11/2024
I have volunteer judged at several local SF Bay Area and online speech/debate tournaments (Stephen Stewart, UOP, etc.) for 5+ years. However, I personally have zero competitive speech/debate experience myself-- treat me as a "lay" judge.
I am currently studying computer science and coding. Sound reasoning and logical arguments win the day. Quality over quantity! Listing a bunch of arguments doesn't impress me, the same way broken code doesn't impress me.
I like voting for debaters that actually demonstrate that they themselves fully understand what they're talking about and how their arguments actually work. Prove to me you've done the research. And be able to tell that to me in your own words. Anyone can read a dozen articles out loud. Few can demonstrate true critical thinking.
EVIDENCE: No need to include me on email/electronic evidence chains or show me articles during/after the debate! I should be judging the round based on the things you and your opponents said in the round- not my own reading comprehension.
SPEED: Do NOT speak over 200 words per minute! Good communication is about sending AND receiving messages. If I can't understand you, I can't buy your arguments, and you will lose.
END OF DEBATE: Give me 2-3 clear voting issues! Last speeches of any debate: stop debating. Tell me why you win! Impact/Weigh the debate for me! Explain to me explicitly (slowly and clearly) why your team makes the world a better place. Tell me what I should put down for the "RFD" on my ballot.
I am a lay judge who is new to the PF scene. Speak slowly, no spreading, minimize jargon, and read only substance. Enunciate and extend your arguments/responses, and I will make the decision off of who came off the most confident/had the best points. Good luck and have fun!
former debater but i prefer a lay style! the most important thing is to have fun in round. you will do great!