Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I did PF in high school and I am now a senior in college, do with that information what you will. Please add mirandahopenutt@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain something like "Grapevine Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN."

The basics:

- I hate paraphrasing, please cut cards. I think it's bad for the activity, 9/10 times is misrepresentation, and high schoolers are less informed than the academics they are citing. I won't drop you for paraphrasing, but please make it abundantly clear where you pulled your argument from the text. (If it is clear, you could have saved yourself and everyone else a whole lot of time by just reading the card in the first place)

- I will vote on the most cleanly extended and well weighed argument in the round.

- Respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal please (your speaker points will reflect whether you did). I will not evaluate new defense in second summary on offense dropped by the second rebuttal.

- Make sure your extensions of arguments are extensions of the entire argument. Saying "extend the Jones '12 turn" in summary is not sufficient for you to go for that turn in final focus, for example.

- I will evaluate theory, k's, etc., but I prefer debates on the topic. This is simply because I feel that I am much better at judging debates on the topic. So, if you choose to read these arguments go for it, but understand that I need you to explain exactly how they should influence my ballot.

My name is Neil Press. I debated for Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Florida from 2012-2016 in Public Forum. I am currently a graduate student at Indiana University.

I AM ALLERGIC TO SHAKING HANDS (very serious allergy could cause death for all involved)

Note: I have not judged public forum since November 2018. I have very little experience with the rule changes for 2019-2020. If you speak slower and make better arguments, I will give you higher speaker points.

If I deem your behavior in round to be excessively rude, belittling, or hateful, you will not win my ballot.

I vote off the flow. Please weigh your arguments for me or do some type of framing, otherwise I will vote off a random argument and you will not be happy. Weighing isn't just saying why something is important, it is saying why it is more important than your opponent's arguments. It requires a comparison.

I am typically tech>truth if you aren't offensive and don't go severely beyond the limits of what I should expect to hear in a Public Forum round. If you are unsure if you are crossing that line, feel free to ask me before the round.

I will only evaluate theory if it is justified, don't read it just to win. Theory needs to be necessary. As an FYI, I don’t find date theory or speaker point theory necessary. Just ask your opponents for dates before or during the round. Essentially there needs to be blatant abuse for me to even consider theory as a viable route to vote.

I can handle moderate speed, but if you go too fast I will miss arguments. I won't be mad if you go fast, just know you are taking a risk in doing so. If its not on my flow, it is your fault, not mine.

If you are going to read an overview tell me before your speech so I can flow it somewhere.

All speeches should be signposted well. If not, I will miss arguments on my flow and it will be your fault.

Summary and Final Focus parallelism is important to me. If you want me to evaluate something as an offensive argument it needs to be in the Summary. Please make it explicitly clear as to why I should be making my decision. I only vote off arguments in the final focus.

Warrants need to be extended in both the summary and the final focus. If at the end of the round I don't understand why an argument you made is true, I will not vote off of it.

Try to be respectful in crossfire as decorum in round plays a role in how I distribute speaker points. If you aggravate me enough it could affect my decision.

I refuse to vote off any type of necessary but insufficient burden structure that are topic based (Ex: In order to even consider affirming they need to prove the U.S. can be a moral actor), however a burden on a contention is fine (Ex: They have the burden to prove the probability this impact happens).

Take notes of my RFD. You have more rounds at this tournament, potentially on this topic, or later in the year. I am taking the time to give you an RFD and help you get better, you can acknowledge that by writing down what I say. I will dock your speaker points if you are disruptive or not paying attention to my RFD. Be respectful. Feel free to ask me questions about my decision, just don't be obnoxious about it.

TL;DR: I will vote off the flow. I favor heavily weighed arguments.

Name: Aabid Shivji
Affiliation: Colleyville Heritage High School, Colleyville, TX

The number one thing before all else is that I see framework as the most vital layer of the debate. The number two thing is my threshold for extensions. I require a claim, warrant, and impact reiterated, otherwise I don't think the argument was actually extended. Other than that, see below.
I judge LD, PF, and CX, so this paradigm is in 3 parts. Go to your event to see that paradigm.

LD
Speaking
Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down." I'll dock speak if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks significantly. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later.
Framework
I don't think framework is a voting issue. If you win that your role of the ballot/judge/debate space is true, that doesn't mean you win the round unless you win offense under that interpretation of the ballot/judge/debate space as well. Similarly, winning that your standard is good won't win the round for you either unless you're winning offense back to it. I like to see burden structures worked into this layer of the debate, but I don't require a specific form/structure of "framework" as long as debaters tell me what types of impacts matter and how I weigh those impacts. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
"Voters"
You need to do the weighing for me in round. If I have to do work for someone to win the debate, both of you have done something wrong.Therefore, impact calculus is essential, but don't try to do that against oppression impacts. Saying things like "productivity outweighs gender violence" will do nothing but kill your speaks.
Argument preference
I don't really care if you run a plan, traditional case, kritik, or anything else, but just do it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled. That being said, I tend to enjoy good kritikal debates better than other debates.
The K (aff/neg)
If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't.
Theory/Topicality
I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but I'd prefer T or theory to stay out of the debate because I find that these debates usually get super messy and are often extremely hard to resolve. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

PF
Framework
This isn't a voting issue. If you win that your interpretation for how we should debate the topic is correct, that doesn't mean you win the debate, you have to win arguments linking back that prove you meet your interpretation. I like seeing burden structures in this layer of the debate, but again, winning your burden structure is correct means nothing if the other team meets your burden. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
Evidence comparison
I find these debates are usually quite good. However, sometimes these debates take over other discussions about the topic. Evidence comparison is a good strategy, but don't forget to make defensive arguments and turns.
Impact calculus
Don't try to outweigh oppression arguments, your speaks will be docked, and I won't vote on the argument.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

CX
Framework
Not a voting issue- you still have to win offense back to framing issues to prove you best achieve the way you interpret the debate. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
Speaking
Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down." I'll dock speak if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks significantly. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later.
Argument preference
I don't care what you run, as long as you run it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled.
That being said, I tend to enjoy good kritikal debates better than other debates.
The K (aff/neg)
If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't.
Theory/Topicality
I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but try to keep it to just one shell in the debate, because the more shells there are, the more confusing and muddled the debates become. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision.


Last thing: I'm not going to make being nice in round a paradigmatic thing, but please don't be an outright jerk. It's just disrespectful and rude. If a debater is treating you poorly, fire back, because nobody deserves that kind of treatment in round.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!