The Democratize Debate Invitational
2020 — Online, US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi! I just graduated from Notre Dame High School (San Jose, CA) and will be studying Political Science/ Economics at the University of Chicago this fall. I did LD (5 years, lay and fast), OO, Imp, a little PF, and Worlds Schools Debate.
General
Most important thing is to weigh all impacts from your case and on the flow (I don't want to make any decisions that aren't brought up in the debate itself). Make sure you go slow for this part so I catch everything.
Please refer to evidence by tagline/ what it's about instead of author's name and date, since I don't often flow that in super detail. Make sure it's clear when you're reading evidence through a clear citation.
Please don't use acronyms that aren't defined earlier in the round, since most likely I haven't researched the topic you all are debating.
A good CX/CF will boost your speaker points. Just don't be overly aggressive and keep the debate friendly. Any form of being rude to your opponent/ xenophobic commentary leads to LOW speaks and potentially a loss depending on what's said. Let me know before round if there are any questions. :) Good luck!
LD
I prefer a lay/flay round (minus any fluff like quotes at the beginning and unrelevant analogies) but if you want to go fast please read below:
Speed: Please go at a fast conversational speed for me (no spreading). If you spread I probably won't catch what you're saying since I was never good at flowing spreading + I won't be flowing off a doc. Also online audio isn't the best time to practice your spreading skills on me. I will call slow as many times as needed, but if you don't slow down, I won't flow, and I can't vote on an argument I never flowed.
Theory: I'm fine, but I don't like frivolous theory or disclosure theory on a small school/ new debater or on a lay debater that has no clue what theory is. Make sure you go slowly through your standards (have 2 good ones instead of 10 one-line standards) and weigh the impacts.
K's: I'm down for most mainstream K's like cap but I never really liked Baudrillard/ Wilderson (but you can run it, you just have to go slow for me). Make sure you explain the K in your own words for it to come across clearly for me.
I'm good with a stock case of advantages, disadvantages, and counterplans. Sketch counterplans are fine with me as long as you run it well and are prepared for theory.
PF
If you want to go fast or anything, read what I wrote above regarding LD. Otherwise, a fast conversational speed works for me.
If a rule is violated in the round, you should point it out to me (during your speech, not mid round) since I don't have PF rules memorized. Make sure to compare evidence, have good clash in round (instead of just repeating your own points), weigh arguments, and keep the round friendly.
he/him
siddhantdanave@gmail.com
Hi! I am a PF debater and a flow judge. Tech>Truth I have debated throughout my high school years, so speed is free with me. ENUNCIATE if you are using speed. I won't write down what I don't understand.
It is your job to weigh in speeches, and it is my job to judge you based off of that. If you give me no weighing, I can't really do the comparative analysis for you- the debate becomes bland and I give a decision that you might not be satisfied with.
Try to frontline in second rebuttal- respond to important turns at least. Moreover, since summary is now 3 minutes, you HAVE to extend rebuttals and frontline and WEIGH in summary. If it is dropped, then it is dropped. Do not try to extend or respond to something you dropped, especially in final focus. I am not going to count it, so it is a waste of time.
You can run theory and K's, but I have no soft spot for it. If it is complicated, explain it well or I am not buying.
Give off-time roadmaps or signpost, where ever and whenever you can. It is much easier for me to follow your speech. If your speech is all over the place, do not expect me to follow it.
I am super hands off when judging, so I won't call for a piece of evidence unless you compel me to call for it.
Please add me to your email chain, or evidence sharing doc using this email: yingying.fang.debate@gmail.com
Warrant your evidence! Don't just give me an empiric without any explanation! I value good analytics over cards, but cards obviously help a lot too.
I don't count prep for calling cards, but I do when reading them.
MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE USING PREP. Since everything is online, don't be sneaky! I can tell if something is off, and I will not be nice if I catch you in the act.
Collapse! Please narrow your speeches into the clashes and core arguments of the round. Drop unnecessary arguments and be strategic! If not, the debate can be become muddled and stronger arguments don't have the time to shine.
Time yourselves! I will give a 5-10 second leeway, but I will stop writing any new points after that period. To signal speeches past-time, you will be able to see my timer in the air, or a hand gesture pointing to my wrist.
I am more lenient towards new and younger debaters; don't worry too much about rules at this stage and just build basics! Always make sure to check feedback!
My facial expressions are very obvious, so if I look confused, then I probably am. Look to me in the round to see if I am following you.
I enjoy a bit of humor in speeches, especially puns, but don't be rude in or out of the round. I will deduct speaks for any derogatory language or discrimination of ANY kind; the world is already very melancholy, so be happy and kind debaters!
Just do your best! :))
current freshman at Carnegie Mellon University
did PF for 3 years, LD for 1 year
tech>> truth
extend your arguments (offense needs to be in summary for me to vote on it)
if you any questions- please ask me before round!
please be nice and respectful to everyone and have fun :)
UPDATE: Been off the circuit for a year now, take my paradigm with a grain of salt and have fun!!!! <3
Medical Student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9.
WHO AM I?
- I disclose and give oral feedback
- I appreciate trigger warnings
- I am a flow judge
- I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts. This is because I have no real knowledge regarding the crux of econ, poli, etc. This is only an exception for med-related topics (just keep it realistic for pharm-based topics)
- I do not like straight up card dumps that have little to no warrants
- Content > style
SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)
I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:
- STYLE: Because I have been off the circuit for a while, I cannot keep up with speed but will try my best if you have a long argument (clarity > speed)
- CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
- MANNERS: This has never been a problem for me but any sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will be serious
- TIME: If you go really overtime (like one minute longer) then it would be a problem
WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE
- Road map after second rebuttal
- Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But if you have any cool theories send it to my email helenh2001@gmail.com so I can have a funny dinner table conversation with my SO.
- Tech > truth (Except in med/pharm topics; I accept any well warranted and linked argument)
- I pay attention to crossfire but any real concession should be mentioned in speech
- Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
- Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
- If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final
- Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
- Focus on collapsing. 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it.
- Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
- Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded
HOW DO I VOTE?
- 90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
- Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
- Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that.
- Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.
MISC.
- Since I'm a college student, feel free to ask me any questions related to medical school
- I'm always down for a good banter
- Connect with me to chat more about academic-related questions: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-huang-635321146/
Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.
Judging Paradigm:
1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)
2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.
3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.
4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.
5. Don't be rude.
tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.
--
Below is my detailed paradigm:
• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.
• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.
• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.
• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.
• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.
• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.
Experience:
I currently compete in open public forum and have a couple of years of experience. I also do a few other styles of debate like CNDF and BP. So don't worry about using PF terms like timeframe, drops, magnitude, flow etc.
Evidence
PF is very heavy on evidence so use cards that are cited with trustworthy sources, and if your evidence seems too far fetched or the numbers don't sound right I will either disregard or call for it. But at the end of the day evidence and cards aren't everything, you need to explain it well. So the warrant is extremely important. I won't just buy a card without any reasoning or explanation.
Preferences
I would like you to write my flow for me, basically making everything VERY CLEAR. Summary and Final Focus are the most important speeches, especially in FF please give me voters to vote on. Explain why you won in each voter so you essentially write my flow.
I am alright with speed but PF has short speeches which means you should explain your arguments concisely. Don't spread or go crazy fast because if I can't understand you I can't flow it. If you have to speak fast make sure to enunciate and emphasize.
Pleaseee extend your arguments, if an argument doesn't come through to FF, or was dropped in summary I won't vote for it. As a debater I don't like it when my opponents bring up new evidence, arguments, or refutations later than grand cross, so please don't do that.
Frameworks aren't required but if you have one that's great, and if you don't have one but your opponents do as long as it is reasonable I will go with the provided framework.
I don't flow crossfires so if you want something to be flowed bring it up in the next speech. Tell me the impacts, your argument essentially has no value if there is no impact, so weigh impacts! Speaking style only contributes to your speaker points and just basic understanding. So your content > speaking style. Rounds can be very stressful so a little humour is appreciated to lighten up everyone's moods:)
Time
I will time you but also time yourself. There is no need to time your opponents and please don't tell them they are overtime, I will do that. I will give you 5-10 seconds of grace time, so just wrap it up I won't simply cut you off. I value what you have to say over time.
Etiquette:
Debate is a peaceful way of arguing not firing roasts at each other, especially during crossfire please be respectful let them finish their points otherwise I might lower your speaks. I encourage you to attack the arguments all you want but leave the person out of it. Be savage but don't be mean:)
Relax and good luck!
Feel free to email me at meverestlin@gmail.com
I debated for Lynbrook High School, and I now study Computer Science and Philosophy in university.
I did PF for three years and LD for four years. I won the SVUDL Spring Invitational (SCU) in LD back in 2021. I also did a lot of circuit LD too.
I am comfortable evaluating any type of argument (I've run all sorts of things like moral skepticism, Buddhism K, commodification of suffering K, etc although I mostly tried to run somewhat unique policy-style arguments while LARPing). Even though I'm fairly liberal when it comes to accepting unique arguments, I have strong preferences for what I would like to see while judging a debate. The judge is not there to vote for the winner of the debate, the winner of the debate will be the team that best persuades the judge. So I won't shy away from stating what I like and dislike.
- Don't run anything that someone could reasonably run theory against. For example, hyperspecific plans.
- No theory/T/disclosure. Also no spreading (but speaking slightly faster than conversational pace is perfectly fine).
- The two bullet points above work quite nicely together. If you want to know why I have these preferences, I'd be happy to discuss.
- I really like philosophy, so if you read it, read it well. Make it interesting, and make sure you understand what you're talking about.
- Do not misconstrue evidence, I will vote you down if you do
- Don't be rude, but be confident and persuasive, even if it is a circuit LD round
- Here's a cheat code to win my ballot. In your final speech, explain what the most important argument/layer of the round is, why it is the most important, and why you are winning it. Write my RFD for me.
If you need any accommodations or have any questions, let me know before the round.
My email is mishra7yash@gmail.com
freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate
6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)
add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)
General:
i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.
don't spread
speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up
low point wins may happen in round
i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it
don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth
1/2 ac:
do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.
rest is self explanatory I said it above
general cx:
make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude
cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason
do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks
rebuttal:
cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round
if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last
summary:
COLLAPSE
it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win
do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh
ff:
just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it
good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)
Hi, I'm Jessica!
I have experience competing in speech and debate tournaments.
Below is a summary of what I am looking for -- If you have any other questions, ask me!
———
GENERAL: Debate and Speaks
- 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns.
- If dropped in the following speech, it's dropped. If not extended, it's not there. -- Summary and Final Focus speeches are important.
- Average in-division is 28 (it really can only go up or down from here). BONUS: If you sing Let It Go (before the round starts) I'll add 0.5.
- I don't like theory args.
- Tech > Truth
- I flow -- but treat me like a flay judge.
———
IMPORTANT
- I've seen good spreading and bad spreading. If you aren't good at spreading, don't spread at all.
- WEIGH!
- I won't be timing the speeches/prep time used, so time yourselves and keep your opponents accountable.
- Add me to the email chain: jessicajzhang05@gmail.com
- Don't be rude to your opponents. If you are, I will doc your points to 26.
———