Iowa Novice Night 4
2021 — NSDA Campus, IA/US
PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideIowa City West High School '23 | she/her | alicedebate3014@gmail.com
About me: I’m currently a varsity PFer; this is my 4th year of debate.
NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!
General:
- "debate is a game" so tech>truth
- I will always disclose unless told not to
- Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
- Time yourselves
- Be nice
- If you bring me bubble tea before the round, +0.5 speaks
- Feel free to email or Instagram DM me if you have more questions after the round :)
Things I want to see:
- Off-time roadmaps & signposting
- Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
- Start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
- Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
- Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
- Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
- Collapse STRATEGICALLY - aka don't go for the contention/argument that has 8 responses to it (unless you're prepared to/have time to frontline them all), when you could go for the one that has just 2
Things I DON'T want to see:
- "Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf. If I miss something you say, that's on you. (If your opponents spread, feel free to run anti-spreading theory)
- Don't read frivolous theory
- DONT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF
- "asking" statements, instead of questions, during cross
- New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
- Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary (I won't vote on it)
- DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze in between and explain how they prove your point
- Discrimination
I think speaks are very subjective, but here you go:
30: God-tier - I see you definitely breaking and making it into deep out rounds
29.5-29: Great - You're breaking for sure, might not make it far, but you're breaking
28.5-28: Average - Might be on the verge of breaking/will be in a bubble round
27.5-27: Comprehendible
<26: Either I can't understand you at all, or you were egregiously rude/discriminatory
Evidence-supported topicality is a key to my vote. Avoid exploding the topic just for the sake of shock value--if you've honed your skills, the strength of your argument will win over gimmicks. Being organized is another important factor; the better I can follow your lines of reasoning, the more likely I am to vote your way. Confidence is great, but arrogance can be off-putting.
My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters not speed spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. It also makes for a better Public Forum debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. 2) That crossfire be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Coach and a speech Judge.
Public forum debater for Johnston
She/Her/Hers pronouns
- Clarity over speed always
- Warrant everything you say
- Be respectful towards your opponents (in other words do not be rude in cross, let the other person speak!)
- I don't count stuff in most crossfires unless you make it a point and bring it up again in a speech
- Please don't bring up new evidence past summary, and don't bring up new responses in final focus
- Don't make up evidence! Paraphrasing is fine unless you are misinterpreting evidence
- Always weigh !!
- Extend arguments through out your speeches in order for me to evaluate them
- I'm chill with k’s /theory /etc and pretty much any other out of the box arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained
- And don't stress about speaks
Email me if you have questions and send me cards/cc me @ sirimandava.au@gmail.com
I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.
add me to the email chain and label the round please: morgandylan183@gmail.com
Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get there.
please do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal call your opponents out if they do this
Don't shake my hand
I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.
Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not.
Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow.
You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.
General Preferences of Arguments
quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)
Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!
Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing.
I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.
Progressive Arguments
I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.
With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.
Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.
Pronouns: they/them
Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.
Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP.Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. Why not "all" ballots and just a majority? --> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.
I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!
What I look for in a round:
Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.
Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit
Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.
For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.
reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.
One of my favorite parts of Congressional debate is that it combines debate and public speaking aspects with the performance side of speech. Given the time limits we operate under, clear and concise speeches are important-cite your evidence, refute your opponents respectfully, and be sure to point out your impacts. Do not waste the chamber’s time with games that will run the clock down (yours or your opponent’s during questioning). It’s disrespectful and does not move the debate forward.
I am evaluating the full time in session, not just the 3-minute snippet of speeches: how are you working with (or against) your colleagues? How are you working together as a chamber to get legislation passed? Questions-both asked and answered-do count into my scoring.
The Presiding Officer is more than just a timekeeper. They set the pace, organization, and mood of a chamber. To be a new PO-or to be a PO at a high-level competition-can be a risk. Their effort is considered when I score. Point of order: There is no mathematical pattern as “random” selection for questioning.
I'm a senior and have been a public forum debater for three years. My pronouns are she/her/hers.
Please add me to the email chain: my email is cayan23@icstudents.org.
If you have any questions about the round, my decision, or debate in general, please don't hesitate to ask or email me after the round :)
Things I want to see:
- Warranted arguments that are extended w/ impacts: for me to vote on an argument, it should be extended throughout all speeches
- Off-time roadmaps and signposting (!!)
- Weighing/voters in summary & final focus
Things I don't want to see:
- Lying: I don't like intervening so please be transparent and direct
- Rudeness: I will likely dock speaks
- Discrimination: your speaks will nosedive and I may drop you.
Speaker points
- 30: v good; expect you to be among top speakers/teams in the tournament
- 29-28: pretty good; expect you to break
- 27-28: average; you may break/be on the verge of breaking
- 25-27: not bad
- Below 25: you were discriminatory/lied/extremely rude :(
- Will add 0.1 speaks for each tasteful roast of Alice Doresca, Ben Kleiman, or Andrew Dong
Miscellaneous
- I can handle pretty fast speaking but keep in mind that I have never debated/judged ld/policy
- Theory is ok when warranted/not frivolous
- Bonus speaker points for humor & good vibes
- Have fun :D!!