CHSSA Middle School State Championship
2021 — Online, CA/US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidestockdale 23
add both - email for the chain is vaibhavarhan2@gmail.com and aggarwaldebate@gmail.com
you can call me judge or vee or rly anything during round wtv floats ur boat
ill look at the docs if i need to but if its incoherent imma yell clear like twice max
coming out of a policy background - did progressive ld for a little too. with that in mind, my focus during hs was mainly a traditional style of debate so if you're going for super high tech rounds - sry, probably not your person im afraid.
ill do my best if i get in these rounds but honestly, you do you. if you have to lose me to get the rest of the panel, do it.
policy
plans and larp are obviously the most familiar and if you main that pls do read that so go for the cps, das, etc.
k's r chill too, probably not the absolute best but i def know the basics and have read cap, set col, security, etc. make the link clear and i think we should be chilling
k-aff's aren't as clear cut for me bc i j didnt have much experience with them till senior year - you can try just dont be reading something completely random yk, if thats true neg def has an easier wall to climb with fw
t/theory - no friv, thought this was pretty annoying in hs and haven't changed thoughts about it since
condo is bad like post 4 condo advocacies as a catch all but i can be convinced otherwise just debate it well
ld
same as policy mostly
just strike me if you run phil or trix, i was confused about that in hs and i certainly havent looked at since i graduated
New parent judge. I am fine with some spreading. However, if you speak so quickly that I can’t understand then I can’t judge you effectively.
debated for archbishop mitty 3 years, did LD
email is alexali000[@]gmail[.]com
important:
- no in-round discrimination.
general:
- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be considered complete
- different arguments begin at different risks. some arguments are just less probable than others so you need to do more work to convince me of them
- tell me how i should evaluate the round and weigh
- signpost, number, explain, and slow down during rebuttals
Tl;dr -- If you explain arguments well, I'll vote for them. Give me the RFD that you want me to say.
1. Familiarity with types of arguments
(a) Util Trutil; (b) Theory; (c) Phil; (d) Kritiks; (e) Trix
2. I value a good ballot story over anything else. Explain to me what arguments are most important, why they're important, how arguments interact with each other on the flow. Tell me how to decide the round.
3. If you use tricks or any tactics that purposefully avoid clash (you know what you're doing), please don't pref me. That being said, I am sympathetic towards a well-explained skep argument/theory arguments.
4. I presume arguments to start at 0% credence, which means that just because it was dropped does not mean that it is true. If it's dropped, then that adds some weight, but you still have to explain the argument for me to vote on it.
5. I am most familiar with plan affs/CPs + DAs; please do some weighing on impactsandlinks/evidence.
6. I will give +0.5 speaker point for good disclosure practices, just put a screenshot in the
7. Theory's highly abused, but if you argue it well, I'll vote for you. I don't like voting for links of omission (e.g., aff must spec -- pre-round solves) or other silly arguments. Nebel T's chill.
I don't debate circuit and am not familiar with spreading or K's, so most likely if you spread I won't be able to flow your case. I really don't have many preferences for throughout the round, but please do signpost your case if possible! (1st contention, subpoint A, subpoint B, impact, etc.)
hey y’all! my name’s Anya (she/her), i’m a freshman at dougherty valley and have been competing in congress for the past 3 years.
what i’m looking for:
argument structure - the logic behind your arguments should be easy for me to follow. evidence should be stated with a source or author, and a date. the best usage of evidence, in my opinion, is when you cite statistics and then explain it's relevance in the debate. i want to hear your thought process, so i’ll take this over a credible author’s word any day.
speaking style - i care about what you say, i don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on how you say it. that being said your speaking still needs to be clear enough for me to fully understand. also keep in mind when content is equal among competitors, i’ll be using presentation to determine who gets the higher rank. feel free to try different speaking styles that you think are effective and engaging, i’m open to anything.
rehash - don’t do it!!!! (note all the exclamation points) if you are planning on extending an argument, make that clear by mentioning the speaker you're adding on to.
weighing - this is so so so important. y’all should not be speaking in parallels. many arguments presented by the opposing side are probably true, so explain to me why your impacts matter more than theirs.
refutations - namedropping is NOT considered a refutation. fully flesh out your links and explain why it disproves your opponents argument. refutations are expected in every speech after the authorship/sponsorship in some capacity.
cross x - ask questions that poke holes in your opponents logic. quality of questions will be taken into consideration when determining overall rank.
adaptability - if you have to flip sides to keep the debate going i’ll be more lenient when judging. adaptability is an important skill for debaters to have.
POing - if you win in a PO election expectations will be much higher than someone who just volunteers for the sake of even having a round. overall as long as the chamber runs seamlessly you will be ranked well.
most importantly, be respectful and have fun! every tournament is a learning experience, so don’t get too stressed about ranks, instead focus on putting your best foot forward. feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.
For Debate: Consider me as a flay judge
I personally just look for a clean round. I do prefer traditional as it is the debate I am most comfortable with. However I do not mind theory or kritiks.
Tech>Truth
Please signpost in your speeches, I shouldn't have to jump all over the flow to figure out where you are. And don't give me a huge off time roadmap.
Please weigh in your speeches, and explain as to why you have won a certain argument. Also remember to collapse on arguments in your final speeches as well. This makes everyone's life easier.
Time yourself in round. I will not be flowing new arguments anymore after your time is up. If you excessively go over time I will cut you off.
I do not flow during cross. If something was said during cross bring it up in the next speech.
Any evidence that is shared in round, I want to see it as well please send it to my email (laibaa.bajwa@gmail.com). If you are invalidating evidence, please explain why.
*For PF my biggest thing! If you bring up new arguments in summary speeches I will not flow them. You will just be wasting your time, be careful.
For speaks everyone's speaks will start at 30 and I will deduct points based on various factors. Don't be too worried about this, if you have questions or concerns just ask.
Overall don't be rude to your opponents, humor is always appreciated when appropriate and just have fun.
Graduated alum of S&D. I have judged before for middle school tournaments.
I have had significant experience in a variety of events, from public forum debate to international extemporaneous to duo interpretation, and I'm always looking for new opportunities to build on my speech and debate expertise.
Traditional judge. Preferably no theory. Please weigh.
I will listen to your cx and give it equal weight as your speeches, so don't use it as a time to ask poor questions.
Please signpost.
No plan/counterplan unless I'm judging policy.
I AM EMPHASIZING DECORUM, ESPECIALLY IN CROSS-EXAMINATION. I WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY ARGUMENTS OR POINTS MADE IN CX IF YOU GUYS ARE SPEAKING OVER EACH OTHER, AND EXTENSIONS FROM CX WILL ALSO BE IGNORED.
...
My email for card chains: mcb.balerite@gmail.com
please include me!!!
I've competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years with Notre Dame High School.
likes
- clear speaking
- signposting
- links and impact-weighing
- constructive cross
- calling for evidence
- collapsing
dislikes
- theory (but I'll vote off it if you run it well)
- tricks and abusive ks
- mishandling evidence
- spreading without first flashing your case
- being too aggressive in cross
Congrats on making it to States and good luck!
so bad at debate the nsda sued me
Hi! My name is Anchal and I have been competing in Public Forum for 4 years. Keep it simple, make sure you have good roadmaps, warrants, and impacts that are extended throughout the debate. WEIGH in your speeches and do the weighing comparatively. Good with speed, don't spread (send speech docs if you do). Clean cut cards + fast evidence exchanges pls.
If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them in round.
Arguments with strong evidence with the proper foundation.Well explained reasoning and strong counter argument in support of their views will make a difference.
Tech judge
Put me on the email chain pls: tbhatnagar@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org and collegeprepdocs@gmail.com
Quick summary,
Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better
Defense is sticky.
Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.
K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency
If you say Among Us or make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)
If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
* * * * *
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.
General:
Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.
Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.
~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~
This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.
Part I - General Substance:
If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.
I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.
You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.
Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.
I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.
"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.
Part II - Evidence:
Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.
Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.
Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.
Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”
Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.
Part III - Weighing
Weighing = great. Do it.
You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.
—Weighing §1—
Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.
Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.
Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.
—Weighing §2—
In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).
On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.
Part IV - Defense:
Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.
Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.
Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"
~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~
All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.
Theory:
Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.
I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.
—Theory §1—
Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.
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.
Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... 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 should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).
Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.
—Theory §2—
I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.
If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.
If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.
I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.
Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.
Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.
Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.
K:
I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.
If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.
If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.
Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.
Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.
Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.
CPs:
I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.
Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.
FW:
Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.
Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Tricks:
If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.
Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.
Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.
~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~
Presumption:
Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.
Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.
Preferences:
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 2
Kritik - 3
Tricks - 4
Phil - 4
Non-T Kritik - 5
Performance - 5
Postrounding:
Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.
Speaks:
I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!
If you want a boost:
+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS
+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)
+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo
+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting
+0.1 speaks if you have round reports
I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).
If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.
I enjoy listening views on different aspects of pressing social-political issues and I like to participate in informal discussions on various topics. I did participate in debate to some extent but can't call myself an experienced debater, myself. Although, while I'm not an experienced debater and I may not know necessarily everything about the world in context of the debate, I do know how a good debate should look like and how to spot a good debater.
I do value good presentation and speech skills but while judging debate formats, a good speech without convincing arguments and corresponding evidences would not get my vote. I expect good understanding of the topic, convincing argumentative and cross-ex skills and well researched evidences from a well rounded debater. I also value respectfulness, active participation and ability to keep the audience engaged.
A few things to keep in mind when I'm judging the room:
- Be on time and maintain a pleasant & confident outlook.
- Don't be mean. There is a difference between being mean and being assertive. Also, there is difference between being mean and being witty. I appreciate assertive arguments and witty remarks but NOT mean and aggressive language and attitude.
- Focus on your evidences and arguments and if you think you have a gold mine argument, present it well and feel free to assert it 2-3 times during your speech where it is relevant.
- During cross-ex, focus on the strength of your cross-ex, be quick in your questioning and don't try to win by using up most of the time just extending the question or interfering while the other person is responding. It's lame!
All in all, I expect that the session ends up being a good, positive learning experience for everyone in the room.
I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.
CIRCUIT STUFF (LAY ON THE BOTTOM) (for chssa ms state read the bottom, it's a lay tournament so just chill out and run ur lay cases)
Im an LD dude, run mostly plan affs and da-cp negs. Also run T and theory usually. PLEASE DONT READ GRAPHIC CONTENT i might vote for you if you debate well, but youll get terrible speaks because i am not rly mentally comfortable with that stuff.
Mostly ill give high speaks because unless you do something like extremely bad they're pretty arbitrary in the 27.5-29 range. So if i think you're good but not god tier ill just give you a high 28 because i think speaks are dumb.
If you debate poorly ill give you a high 27.
if ur mean or do anything thats just like morally questionable ill give you a 25.
LARP - DAs and CPs are very good. Perm is a test of competition. MAKE SURE TO WEIGH. if either side forgets to weigh, the other team will win because its pretty clear then (unless its like egregiously bad).
Ks - Regular Ks like cap, militarism, fem, etc. are pretty cool, just explain everything clearly. ROTB is kind of a dumb argument because its essentially "role of the ballot is to vote for me" so find a real moral fw. Most alts are not well written and/or don't have solvency(eg anything that calls for endorsing a paradigm or utopia or anything like that) so call that out and neg teams, just make a well prepped alt. Me voting for you will not have any real world impacts outside of debate, so make sure your K impact/alt is something that is actually measurable in some way or else case outweighs becomes very convincing.
T - Usually fine, TVA is good, so is limits. But if you're core of lit you can win, like running Russia on the nukes topic, etc is definitely topical. T is a stock issue no rvis, CI and DTD but i will vote on reasonability because most affs are T.
Theory - don't read friv theory. Condo good, but you can win off condo bad. Pics good, same thing. Reasonability, no rvis (unless super friv), DTA on most things, but i can be convinced otherwise for this stuff. Fairness > education
Non-t affs - Fairness is probably an impact and something you say in a debate round is very unlikely to affect anything out of it. I'm not well versed in this, but just try ur best to defend why this is fair and why I should vote on some impact. Please find some framing to tell me why the impacts ur k-aff talks about matter.
T-FW- I like this argument, but you have to run it well and collapse well to win. Find TVAs, theyre very powerful arguments
Phil - Explain it well, don't just throw out buzzwords. No moral philosopher would think extinction is good (or at least most of them, I understand some do and that is okay). Im cool with phil though, it's a fun way to debate, just PLEASE dont have impact justified frameworks (ie "the standard is minimizing terrorism instead of util).
Tricks - They're kinda annoying, yes, but if you impact everything out and frame it well, I'll vote for it. Just dont be annoying about it or ill dock ur speaks
Be cool. Don't be a meanie-bo-beanie.
Email : aaravbillore22@mittymonarch.com
TL;DR and Prefs
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 1
Normal Ks - 2
Phil - 3
Not normal Ks - 4
K affs - 4
Tricks - 5
LAY
Treat me like you would any other judge.
I do flow, and I am tech>truth (unless you make an absurd claim with no warrant, in circuit that is okay, in lay it is not)
I won't really consider speaking (unless you're being rude) but it will probably unconsciously affect me a little so keep note of that
Also please weigh and do voters or else I'll have to intervene and probably will make a decision a least partly based on subjectivity, so just tell me what should be considered and how heavy it weighs and I will do that
STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 06/04/24)
Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)
B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)
FORMERLY:
- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.
--
TL;DR VERSION
I don't want to read your cards or be on your email evidence chain. I hate homework/spam.
I don't buy crazy low probability impacts like global warming and nuclear war unless you work hard for them: multiple warrants, proper link chains, and a demonstration that you've read more academic literature than I have is typically required. If you say "The impact is nuclear war: 100 million die" followed by author name and without any further warranting, you will likely lose.
Spread over 250 wpm: YOU DIE.
Read only author last names and year for super important/critical cards: YA DIE.
Last speech of any debate: focus on voting issues. If you continue/only debate the flow: YOU DIE DIE DIE.
Run BS Theory & Play Stupid Games: You win stupid prizes. And... YOU DIE.
--
REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)
Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!
1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.
2. EVIDENCE:
2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.
2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's. I signed up to judge a debate not do extra reading homework.
2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence when it comes to your most key/consequential cards. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case.If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence. (Author last name + year is fine for small stuff)
3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!
4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM
I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.
Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.
--
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.
- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)
- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.
- Global Warming / Nuclear War / Extinction Impacts: Good luck with those. I rarely if ever buy any of those exaggerated / overblown / 1% probability impacts unless you explain thoroughly and in great detail how 10+ million plus people are going to die. You can't just say "China will get mad and nuke Taiwan and then we all die." I have a Chinese Tiger Mom. I've personally seen Chinese aggression up close: thrown slippers and passive-aggression hurt. They don't hurt that bad.
- Capitalism Ks: LOL!You're gonna read me something off of a Macbook Pro that you were given by your hired debate coach while competing for a private school that charges Stanford tuition prices. Didn't your parents drop you off at the tournament in a Tesla Model S? That nice suit you're wearing better not be Armani.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.
--
PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
POLITICAL
- I identify as a Classical Liberal.
- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.
- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle. (I now donate in cash... don't make the same mistake I made kids!)
- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.
- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.
COMPETITIVE
- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI
I've had extensive experience competing in Speech and Congress. In speeches, I'm looking for great writing, innovative blocking/gestures, and an original topic area. I also have an acting background, so I will be looking for specificity, character distinction, and believable emotions. Make me feel invested in your character and in your world! I appreciate trigger warnings where needed and want to feel connected to you as a speaker.
As for Congress, I'm looking for original but well-researched and connected contentions, pointed and thoughtful questions, and overall professional engagement in the round. Be kind to your PO, fill your three-minute speech window, and make sure to touch on the other Senators' points.
So excited to see all the talent and courage! Good luck!
I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.
Be nice to your fellow debaters.
Hi! I'm Ricky (she/they) and I'm a third year at Cal Poly SLO majoring in Ethnic Studies. I was a Congress kid, so if I get put into another event for judging please keep that in mind :)
I am open to theory and things like Ks, the largest thing is just spreading for me. If you spread too fast I will have trouble keeping up but you don't have to talk super slow just be mindful.PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR CASE IF THIS IS PF/LD/CX, etc.If this is Speech/Congress PLEASEdon't use any cookie cutter speech openers like "My opponents arg is like a cone of cotton candy, it seems nice at first but when you take a closer look, it's fluff and no substance' plssss thats so corny lol.
Also if this is Congress, PLEASE CLASH! Clash is what makes the event fun and exciting to watch.If you PO more then likely you will be getting a 3-5.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
Email chain: derekqchang@gmail.com
Experience: he/him, 3 years PF and 3 years of WS, 3 year judging
TLDR:
I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other
BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful
Long Version:
Weighing:
- plz weigh in FF and Summary, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc
- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)
- optional but I would HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate
Rebuttals
- tech > truth, so use cards/evidence (not relevant to impromptu)
- clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.
Summary/Reply
- anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow
- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks
Cross/POIS
- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches
Framework:
- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up
also plz warrant and extend warrant
Shoutout: Sunny Sun for letting me borrow dis
Hi, I'm Parnika, and I've done PF for 4 years.
Please speak clearly, extend, weigh, and collapse. Don't miscut evidence and add me to the email chain.
I competed in LD four years and qualified to the CHSSA state in Policy. Therefore I will always be flowing the rounds I Judge!
In LD I look for these things:
-cross examination- I like a good cross examination because I find it clarifies what both the AFF and NEG really are arguing. I take note of the questions being asked and if theres any contradictions they tend to come out in cross examination 95% of the time.
-Definitions:if you define something, do not have 4 definitions for 1 word. Select one that is strong. Having multiple definitions is confusing.
- Theory:if you run theory, argue it well. I have judged rounds with theory in them and do not have an issue with it.
- Make your voter issues known in the last speech
-K affs--> I am okay with, however if you are argue with a K aff, use evidence that STRONGLY supports your case and the resolution.
-Make sure what you are arguing is topical to the resolution.
If you spread make it known prior to speaking.
I have judged a few tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, clear logic, and skills of handling questions.
1. Speak clearly and at a normal pace. Do not rush or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Always be respectful to your opponents.
I am a lay judge, so no spreading, k's and theory please.
Overall, I want to see clash, but please be polite in round. I will buy your arguments if they are logical and make sense even if you don't have evidence to back it up. That being said, use evidence when you can.
Please do impact calculus when possible, but explain ideas thoroughly, I will not make connections for you.
Most importantly, speak clearly, explain your ideas well and have fun!
TLDR: Do what you want and believe is the best strat in the round. Just don't make up stuff, be nice to each other and have fun. Email Chain: johnnycho0910@gmail.com
Debated 3 years for IVC. Coaching/judging speech and debate for ms, hs, and college. Competed in mainly Parli, LD, Extemp, and Impromptu. Competed in both CC and 4-year tournaments. Mostly ran policy and typically lean towards policy debate when judging. Also like T (As Ayden Loeffler would say "layers and layers of theory"). But open to all types of arguments.
Weigh impacts. Let me know how you want me to weigh and evaluate. Love case debate, disads, counterplans, etc. Not the biggest fan of conditionality but you could run them. Speed is a tool but be clear. If your opponent wants you to slow down just slow down, especially with tournaments being online. Collapse so don't go for everything and please signpost.
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'm a student at UC Berkeley who competed in parliamentary debate in high school. I placed 7th in California my senior year, and made it to quarterfinals at the TOC. Ranked 20th nationally per NPDL rankings.
I'm attaching some general preferences below, but in general I'm looking for teams that are interested in having a genuinely educational, interesting debate round- I don't like things getting caught up too much on technicalities. Remember to have fun, take deep breathes, and no matter what happens know that you're still an amazing debater and you've got this.
General Preferences:
- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.
- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.
- If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.
- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.
- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance.
- Don't ignore the main points of clash in the debate. In final speeches, I want to hear every main point of clash encountered and why you deserve to win it. Don't focus on one point they conceded and try to win the round off of just that. Focus on the debate at large and how it went.
Good luck to all competitors!
General:
I did PF in high school, qualled to GTOC 2x, currently attending UC Berkeley.
Im tech. I have a writing disability which makes me not able to flow too fast. Please read <= 720 words, makes my life so much easier and ill be a better judge that way.
email: abyan.das@gmail.com
Specifics:
1. Second rebuttal must frontline both offense and defense. First summary must extend defense.
2. rebuttals responsive to actual warrants will be rewarded with speaks
3. signpost, it will boost your speaks and is like essential to me
4. Don't like theory and Ks too much, you can run it but id prefer substance.
5. The easiest way to win in front of me is by doing good, strategic weighing and lots of it.
6. The argument that wins the weighing/framing is what I will evaluate first, please give me a reason to prefer your weighing over your opponents (i.e. better link in to the chosen weighing mechanism, meta weighing, short-circuit, link-in, or best of all prereq). if there is no comparative weighing done, I default to strength of link / magnitude > time frame > probability.
7. do funny stuff in round i.e funny contention names and you will be rewarded with speaks
Hey all, I graduated from Mountain View High School in 2022 and octafinaled at silver TOC in PF
ask me for my email when making the email chain please
treat me like a techy flay
---if you're new to debate, read this:
I really like arguments that have clear warranting (why something happens / is true, not just stating that it is true even if it's from a card [unless it's a statistic about the status quo, like something being at some percent]) and I really like when you use magnitude / timeframe / probability to compare your case with your opponents. good luck and have fun!
---otherwise, general:
speed is fine just don't go Grand Prix on me, bring up important things from cx in speeches for me to flow it, I will almost always give an oral rfd so don't leave right when the round ends, wear whatever you want, off-time roadmaps are fine just make them quick, I will only write a few broad takeaways in the specific feedback sections for each team but if you want more feedback just ask me
---tech specific:
tech > truth unless your case is wildly squirrelly, if you do have a weird case there should be good warranting & I'll look at you funny & I'll be susceptible to probability weighing from your opponents but I'll rely on your opponents to call out your wack argument, pls signpost, pls extend, when extending arguments extend uniqueness/warrant/impact/implication/really key cards not just taglines, 2nd rebuttal must frontline, dropped defense is probably terminal and dropped turns probably conceded but your opponents have to a) bring that up and b) properly weigh it, no sticky defense, collapse in summary, numbers are awesome but I can go for any well-explained and well-weighed impact, implicate impacts/responses on opponent's case, when explaining link/impact turns b sure to explain why I should prefer the turn over the opponent's case, weighing is so awesome please do it ideally starting in summary, starting weighing in 2nd FF is too late, be comparative when you weigh, anything in final focus should be in summary, please please please have solid internal links into your impact / have a solid impact scenario, if i don't think either team has offense at the end of the round I intervene and do my own analysis probably on the narrative clash, card with warranting > no card with warranting > card without warranting > no card with no warranting
---
On another note, I would not recommend running progressive debate with me. In my experience, it makes debate less accessible to casual debaters as smaller/newer teams don't know how to respond, it makes opponents feel terrible for arguing against it, and it diverts attention away from learning about the (mostly) cool topics we get to explore in debate. That being said, I understand that sometimes topics aren't the best, so if you really have a strong desire to run theory/K's/etc and have a really good reason to, I will evaluate it. Just keep in mind I will be very lenient to your opponents if it is clear they have no idea what is happening and I will be easily persuaded by a substance > theory counter argument (especially if your opponents run no RVIs).
---speaks: definitions will scale with tournament, general case:
30: you're crazy, what kind of milk are you drinking
29.5: delivery very well done: inflection of voice, signposting, slowing on on key facts and when moving to a new side of the case, etc. overall very easy to follow and understand, the structure is clear and consistent
29: delivery pretty clean, few filler words or gaps in speech, appropriate tactical plays made, posts are being signed
28.5: understand well the role that each speech plays in the round, do well at fulfilling that role as well as setting up later speeches
28: you definitely get the gist of the purpose of each speech
27.5: you understand well how debate works and the purpose of each speech
27: catch-all score for some areas of improvement
-- ONLY VALID IF I AM THE ONLY JUDGE PRESENT --
+.1 speaks if you end both your speeches with "Badabap boomp, POW" instead of "Vote Aff/Neg"
+.2 speaks if you refer to your partner as "Scoob" instead of "my partner" and your partner refers to you as "Shaggy" for the duration of the round. To be clear, one of you should be Scoob and one of you should be Shaggy
+.1 speaks if you have a conversation with your opponents before the round starts about how their day is going / an interesting fact about them / what they do for fun aside from debate (cuz we're all here for fun and debate is so fun...right?...)
+.1 speaks if you include "bingo bango bongo" in your speech in a way that makes sense
Please set up a SpeechDrop (https://speechdrop.net/) to share files. I will be timing you. Please signpost.
Cp - If you perm, give me analytics (better yet, evidence) on why the positions are not mutually exclusive.
Topicality - it is a voting issue. Meet the interpretation, provide your counterinterp, plus your reasons to prefer, standards, and voters. If you don't meet the interp, or your own, I vote for the opposition.
K(Aff)'s - bring it on. Be careful of non-competing theories.
Counterplans- Have evidence to back up your argument. Don't give more than one competitive alternative.
Advantages vs. Disadvantages - Impact calculus is your best friend.
Happy debating!
I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.
I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.
I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.
Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.
I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.
I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic.
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.
Good Luck at the Tournament!
My name is Daphne Du and I am the parent of a competitor. My daughter started to participate in speech and debate competition two years ago and I have been involved with her debate program and volunteered to be a judge two times. I am most familiar with congressional debate as that is the form my daughter debates in. I also have some experience judging LD and PF. I focus on the content of the presentation and argument, how convincing it is, whether the argument is valid and to the point, and how well it gets across to me. I also value attitude and the manner you carry yourself in the rounds, not talking over other speakers and follow the guidance from the PO. Most importantly, I am looking for how you contribute to the discussion and move the discussions forward and in a constructive way.
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.
Hello Debaters,
My name is Sameer Eppanapally, And I am a sophomore at stockdale highschool. I have been doing debate for over 3 years now and want to spread my love of the craft to young debaters.
For LD:
I want to see a lot of clash with the debaters. LD is not necessarily an evidence debate, but you should have evidence supporting your major claims. I like an aggressive style of debate, but you must maintain decorum and be respectful of the opponent. I will judge all arguments including kritiks as long as you make good links.
For Policy:
You should have sufficient evidence and cards for most of your arguments. I like to see cross-ex used more for debating than gathering information. maintain decorum. I will judge theory. Please link all of your args, including DA's. CP's are encouraged and I will judge them.
IN GENERAL:
I will not tolerate discrimination or disrespect of any kind towards anyone
Pronouns: he/him
ALWAYS SIGNPOST
Spreading is not allowed, but you are allowed to go for a faster debate round if your opponent agrees.
You must make the connections to your arguments, If you do not then my flow will reflect that.
Do NOT drop the case of your opponent, I simply won't vote for you if you do.
TECH>TRUTH
Make sure you have fun challenge the other opponent and yourself.
Hope to see you in round.
I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates
Speak clearly and do not spread
I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments
*last updated April 12, 2021*
Hey all, I’m Ben (they/them), I go to Los Altos High School
Add me to the email chain benfe024@gmail.com
tech≥truth, I’ll avoid intervention as much as possible while still ensuring accessibility to the round.
1 - ks, phil
1.5 - policy
2 - t
3 - theory
4 - tricks and bad theory
idrc what you read and I like to think im flex - read wtv and win it.
don't be a pos tho
for reference here's my wiki - this is what I read, not necessarily what you should
for online debate
- record speeches locally and send after speech or round if theres a connection issue mid speech
- flash analytics
- send me music please I need smth to listen to
- get verbal confirmation from me before speeches that im ready
- don't worry about your camera - having it off is fine no questions asked
t/l
trad debater =/= don't read "prog" args or args u wanna read but does mean that you should try to be as accessible as you can while also staying within boundaries of what you want to do - however I trust your judgement as to what is accessible. Debate is your space, and what you read is up to you. Nobody, not even your opp, can change that.
on "death good" args: no <3. just no. benatar is fine *only* if read as a criticism of hedonic util, NOT as an advocacy - thats really what he's saying and is also just uh not repugnant
more to be added
Defaults:
truth testing (see the phil part for my thoughts on this), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow.
If I cannot understand what you're saying I will yell "clear". If you haven't made any notable change in clarity after three times yelling clear, your speaks will die. Slow down for the last bit of the 2n/2ar, write my rfd for me.
judge instruction is really fuckin great.
cp/da:
tbh im a lot better for this than my wiki or what you know about me suggests
high level ev comparison is very cool. very.
the 2n collapse needs interaction w case or some level of clash w the 1ar direction of offense
Plans: have a solvency advocate lmao
Disads: clear uniqueness, links, and impacts. the more internal links necessary to complete the link chain, I'll have a higher threshold for the quality of each link. If it takes you that many steps to explain an internal link it's probably just not that true, or at least not as true as the aff.
Counterplans: have a net benefit - if ur cp only solves the aff but not a nb you need a disad or a really good offensive case push or just like,,, will lose. SA's are good, but if you can analytically prove that the cp is a good thing, impressive and acceptable. Infinite condo is a good thing. Process cp's probably true, but they should have some nuanced nb as to why this process of the aff is better.
analytic cps - are a thing.
perms are a test of competition omfl.
T:
this is a work in progress!
Theory:
I'll let you know when I hear a good rvi warrant, hasn't happened yet :/
If you win yes RVIs, you still need to win the shell.
weigh standards
funny frivolous shell done well = +0.1 speaks
the 1ar should answer the 1nc standards not just read a ci
Phil:
some of my favorite rounds to evaluate. understand your syllogism, and probably more importantly, make me understand it too. "bindingness", "freedom", "lexical prereq" means nothing to me unless you actually explain it and why it concludes your framing. not sorry. idk about you but Kant's getting kinda boring. way too many affs spend most of their time developing the syllogism and straight up just don't have robust offense. thats sad. don't be like that. good 1ar pivots against the k = high speaks. if you can give a straight ref 1nc and win, 29 speaks minimum.
Does induction fail? dunno. im quite sure I knew last week but thats a past event so idt I can induce from that ://
read an "obscure" Phil author (not Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Sartre etc you get the point) you get a .5 speaks boost
you should engage the util and da 1nc - actually answering things >>> consequences fail
truth testing doesn't filter out util and you should stop pretending it does
Ks:
yay. I’d like to think that I know a lot of the K lit, so I’ll most likely understand it, but no matter what you gotta explain it. Go for specific links.
stolen from Patrick Fox's paradigm bc I agree w this
- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.
- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.
k-affs: should defend something. your jumping off point should probably be the topic but im open to stuff if not. 2ns should go for presumption more often
more from pat:
- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.
K v fwk
I don't have a preference in these debates but I do believe in k specific impact turns to T. If you can prove that your model of debate is preferable to T then you win the fwk debate. I think 2ar's are more convincing on the impact turn than the counterinterp, but there are strategic 2ars which go for both or j counterinterp which are good.
Some Ks that I've read and/or I'm comfortable with them:
Baudrillard, cybernetics, security, poetry, D&G, gift, Foucalt, Lacan, ableism, Agamben, Bataille, grove
^explain it^
yo tf is up w the 5 line long k tags ?! stop it.
non-indigenous setcol, nonblack afropess, etc are dtd issues - this is not something I will fill in the gaps on myself, but my opinion and I am very open to 2ns/2ars that go for procedurals like these.
Tricks:
trix are still args and still need warrants. I'll probably be just as confused as your opponent if you collapse to one half a sentence in the middle of your underview. I guess I’m impartial to tricks.
I find that the good ol fwk rob spec tt analytic brain rot 1nc isnt the most compelling but is strategic.
hiding "evaluate after the ac" in a cite of a card isnt a good thing :)
Ev ethics: should be read as a shell - allows for deliberation over it as well as opportunities to actually set norms. much better than a procedural which leaves me w a half explained ev violation and no idea how to decide anything. go read Holden Bukowsky's paradigm for more on this.
RFDs
please post round me talking about debate is fun
don't do it w the intent to be angry tho lol
Some things to get higher speaks:
-Signposting is always good.
-give content warnings!!!!!!! (but not when you don't need one obvs)
-Taking proper prep-time. That’ll make me happy.
-keeping the theory debate clear
-if you have some time left in the 2n (or 2ar) I appreciate if you either go back and keep extending offense, as long as it isnt just a repeat of the first half of the 2n, or slow down, give a lbl and tell me how I should be voting on this round. Slowing down and sequencing should be done more.
-pictures of pets in speech docs
-good 2ns on marxism
-music references
-from pat: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.
Some things to get lower speaks:
-making arguments in cx. If you spend 20 seconds making an argument and then you say "what do you have to say to that?", I'll roll my eyes and yawn.
-obviously, evidence ethics are important, so maintain them please. heavy evidence ethics (if proven) is an L20
-be nice to people. cmon.
some other stuff, and pet peeves:
Call me whatever you want, but be consistent I guess. I don't really mind, but if you'd like you can call me my name (Ben!), "judge" "dude", whatever you want.
Explain your cards- "extinction" isn't a good tag. "this causes extinction by..." is a good tag.
Make all the references you'd like, you do you.
You may not concede your remaining cx time to prep time. if you have 20 seconds left of cx, either ask a question, or stop the timer and start your prep.
Anyhoo, just have fun.
obligatory:
Policy--------------------------------X-------------K
K/Policy----------X-----------------------------------Theory/Phil
States CP good----------X------------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing------X-------------------------Delgado 92
Fairness is an Impact-------------------------X------Fairness is an Internal Link
Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits-------------------------X---------------------Aff ground
Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face---------------------------X-Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
Fiat solves circumvention-----------------------X-Can't fiat enforcement if not in the res
CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency
Fiat double-bind--------------------------X----------------literally any other arg
1AR should be a card wall-------X--------------------------------------No 1AR cards
(LD) 2NR should be a card wall---------------X-------------------------------No 2NR cards
Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these
CEDA--------------------------------X--------------------------------NDT
Harvard------------------------------------------------------X--Berkeley
good transparent a prioris and clear tricks -x------------------------- what's an a priori?
Rawls------------------------------X-Literally anything else in existence
Sending Analytics in 1ar/2nr-X------------------------------"I don't want to send"
Five 1AR shells-------------------X------------huh,,, just,,, don't do that.
Hi, I'm Anika! UCLA, Debated at Notre Dame San Jose for 3 years, qualled 3 times, and earned 9 career bids to the TOC. Put me on the email chain (anikaganesh1989[at]gmail[dot]com) although speech drop >>
I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy
General
Will not vote on anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that makes the round unsafe. This includes any arguments that deny the badness of death. Debate is an educational activity, but there are clear lines for what makes the space accessible and safe.
I was a policy and set col/ir debater in high school, which shapes my comfortability in certain debates. Pref me for pure policy, policy v k, and set col/ir v k debates. I’m fine in a kvk debate but substantially better for set col and ir ks than I am for pomo.
I will evaluate tricks but the threshold for answering them is very low -- I will lower speaks for every one read. I’m not your judge for phil and will be lost in anything other than a kant v set col debate. If you for some reason read phil in front of me, explain it to me like I’m 5.
I default reasonability > competing interps, neg on presumption, judge kick, no rvis, cx is binding, and dta. All of these can be changed with proper warranting. **NOTE FOR THEORY** I will not vote on 1ar theory without a warrant that becomes a 3 minutes from “condo is a voter for strat skew.”
“If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either” - Sophia Tian.
I value high quality evidence and will give the same weight to arguments as is in the evidence (ie. my threshold for disads with 10 word cards strung together is way higher).
Policy
Weighing is extremely underutilized (especially turns case arguments) and should always be at the top of the speech.
I love cheaty/process counterplans, impact turns (reading the link for the aff is fine), and good da debates. Counterplan competition debates are fun and interesting, just make sure the warrant for the perm is in the 1ar. Inserting rehighlightings/perm texts is fine. Straight turn 1ar/2ar’s and impact turn 2nr’s are some of my favorite speeches to listen to. Risky NC's like 0 off case will be rewarded with high speaks.
K
My biggest pet peeve in k2nr’s is long and ranty overviews that throw around buzzwords. All of that explanation should be on the lbl. 2nr's should organize the debate into framework, link, and alt sections. Links should be contextualized to the aff even if they’re written generally. Please use link walls!
I like topical k affs that are written/debated well. That being said, you should err on the side of more explanation if the lit base is anything other than cap/setcol/ir/generic baudrillard.
My favorite k 2ar’s are perm + link turn + alt fails, but I also enjoy the fascist way out (framework, case o/w, no link, alt fails). Link turns should be carded. Great 2ar’s on alt fails cite and indict specific examples.
Fairness is ABSOLUTELY an impact. Good TFW 2nr’s have caselists, a TVA, and a clear abuse story.
Cx matters a lot in these debates – reverse pit of doom, asking what the alt does, how the TOP explains the aff, what the aff Does, etc.
Topicality
Topicality is great! I went for t quite a few times as a debater, but all my views were entirely shaped through discussions with Elmer Yang (the topicality GOAT). Nebel-T is less great than topic specific violations, and I’m not voting on the grammar da/niemi.
Theory
Please slow down on interps and standards.
I err neg on condo and other counterplan theory, but I don’t have extremely strong opinions on it. Anything you can do to keep the debate away from regressing to theory is great for me!
I’ll vote on disclosure and think proper disclosure is important.
I hate frivolous theory and will be extremely sad if I have to vote on it.
Make me laugh, keep the debate lighthearted, learn, and make some friends!!
About Me:
Hello, my name is Gaurish Gaur! I use he/him pronouns. I specialize, in impromptu parliamentary debate, however, I have experience with judging and coaching other forms of debate too (i.e. PF, LD, Policy, Cong, etc). I also have some knowledge of speech/IE.
Judging Philosophy:
Overall, I will always choose flow>speaks. However, if a round is extremely close, I will into consideration how well an argument is presented as a sort-of tiebreaker. That being said, here are my general preferences:
*As another reminder, do not be rude to your opponent in any way (laughing, talking over, etc), please keep debate fun for all
*Crossfire questions/POIs will not be flowed but can be used as a gateway to future arg/links
*Spreading is fine, as long as I can follow along. If I am unable to, or the opponents can't either, we'll let you know
*You must explain impacts for arguments in order to do impact calculus at final speeches
*Anything not addressed before the final speech, will be considered a 'concession' (Tech>Truth unless completely unreasonable)
*Don't get too wacky with theory/critics
*I generally value logic arguments over pure empirical evidence, in other words, explain why your card makes sense
*In terms of speaker points, I value speeches that are able to tell jokes/a story or—in general—just switch things up
*Anything that seems unfair/abusive probably is, but the opponent must point that out (framer's intentions)
*Time yourselves, please don't talk too much overtime out of respect for your opponent
*As my last tip, always try to examine your final speech from the judge's perspective, or in other words, the bigger picture
Please feel free to ask me any questions!
Gaurish Gaur
gaurishgaur3@gmail.com
(858-649-9241)
Hi Everyone!
I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:
Things I like:
->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".
->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.
->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are ones generally free of a lot of jargon, highly technical debate, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!
Things that make me sad :( :
-> When ppl make their entire case in their 30 second grace. Guys please, don't do this.
->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.
->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.
->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.
->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)
Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):
->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.
->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!
->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.
->I'm a math major at UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.
->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!
Hello, I am a first-year high school freshman debater! I go to Stockdale High School.
Please add me to email chains: anmolgrewal0173@gmail.com
Though my debating career has just begun, I am very well-versed in debate AND speech!
For speech, I will judge on who has the best performance and includes all elements of an effective speech.
As for debate, I will judge according to each debate type, effectiveness and organization of speech, topic knowledge, ability to work under pressure, etc.
Leave an impact on me and I will most likely vote you!
Thank you :)
This is my fourth year judging. I have experience judging in different debate and speech types. While I do not deduct if time management is within a few seconds, if you go on for 30sec or more beyond the time limit, I will deduct significant points.
The most important element for me is the strength of the presentation, conclusions are logical, and the story is compelling. I believe in maintaining good eye contact, making arguments not just reading cards. Please keep your "spreading" in check. I would like to have a clear and effective delivery. I appreciate clever wordplay and well-done appeals to emotion.
Please think about the weighing mechanism, what is the impact and why I should vote for your side.
Debate and speech should be exciting and fun. Please enjoy the experience. I expect professional behavior by all participants, and look forward to a great session.
lay judge, please do not spread
i have judged a few rounds before, I look for -
- Deep of understanding about the topic
- speakers points and how many evidences are provided.
- Everyone should be respectful
History:
I am a current high school senior, and have been competing for four years. I have competed in LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and various IE events.
Congress:
I value structure, clash, and pace. Research should be sufficient, and the questions that come at you should be responded to with the best of your ability. Please be polite, even in clash. If you are a later speaker, I expect rebuttals against earlier speakers, and please try not to repeat existing arguments, unless you have something to add. Please be active in the rounds, as it shows you are prepared and paying attention.
LD:
Please don't spread, although you can speak relatively quickly. Your value and value criterion should be held up within the constructive and within your arguments. Show me why your value is better than your competitors, and if you can, please try to show why your case can uphold both values. Make sure to have strong cross questions, and respond to the best of your ability.
PF:
Evidence is key. If you can provide good evidence and keep it strong through the round, you will be in a good place in my book. Pace must be understandable, which means no spreading. Have good synergy with your partner, and try not to overlap in answering questions, and uphold your framework/standard through your case.
Parli:
Be able to defend your claims that you make. Although it is extemp, you should provide good evidence and be able to provide a strong case. Have respect for you opponents.
IE:
Your speech should be smooth, and your presentation should be enjoyable for you and me. Please be entertaining! I am excited to watch your speech!
email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com
POLICY PARADIGM:
I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.
I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”
If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.
In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.
Important things to note:
-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.
-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^
-High-theory will be an uphill battle.
-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.
-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.
-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature
-Swearing is probably word inefficient
-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them
-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB
-I think debate is a competition.
-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round
-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.
Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:
-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-Consult CPs
I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:
-warrant and evidence comparison is made
-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized
-the aff advocates a topical plan
-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for
-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy
-I am not expected to sort through high-theory
-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection
Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:
-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC
-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-There is no 3NR
-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)
-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)
-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”
-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive
Unimportant things to note:
-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t
-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research
-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy
-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates
-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.
-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.
Specific Arguments
I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.
That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.
********************************************************
LD Paradigm
I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.
Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.
Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.
I come into the round presuming:
-the aff should be defending the resolution
-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution
-my ballot answers the resolutional question
-debate is a game
These presumptions can likely be changed.
Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:
-dense phil that you’re spreading through
-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution
-process CPs that result in the aff
-more than 2 condo
-friv theory - I ❤️ substance
-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions
-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches
I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.
Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!
Public Forum Paradigm:
First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.
File Share > e-mail chain.
Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.
Howdy,
I formerly debated for San Diego State University. I mostly did circuit Parli, but I sporadically competed in NFA-LD, IPDA, and a few other formats. I placed 5th at the NPTE and 3rd at the NPDA and I'd like to think that I know my way around most arguments. That being said, I believe that all judges have biases, and I have included mine below.
TLDR
I'm down for most any argument you want to run and will evaluate the round based on my flow. I consider debate to be game and the different arguments we use to be strategies in that game. My favorite debates usually occur when both teams run well warranted arguments that they are comfortable with; the debate should be wide in the beginning and narrow in the end. If you explain what you're reading, collapse hard, and be respectful we'll all have a grand time.
1) General Stuff
A. Speed: I am cool with speed and will call for either slows or clears if I need it. I prefer if interps, ROB's, and plan texts be read slowly and appreciate some pen time in between pages. If the format of debate is carded and you want to blaze it, please provide a speech doc. I also appreciate if speed is used appropriately; don't make someone who's debating for the first time want to quit after their first tournament.
B. Partner Communication: I think that partner debate is a team event and therefore don't care at all if you communicate with your partner in your speech. That being said, I only flow the person who's speech it is.
C. Protecting: For Parli, I will try to protect in the rebuttals but if the round is fast there's a chance I won't recognize a new argument as being new so please call points of orders. I also strongly believe that shadow extensions are new arguments.
D) Intervention: I believe that judge intervention is bad; therefore, I will judge strictly off the flow unless something egregious happens (flagrant sexism, racism, etc). I will try to do as little work as possible so please weigh your arguments and tell me how to vote. I maintain that truth is determined by who wins the flow so even if you are objectively "right" if your opponent beats you six ways from Sunday on the flow I will probably still vote for them.
E. Speaker Points: Debate is a game and I award speaker points based mainly on strategy and execution. Warranted, nuanced analysis with substantive clash is the fastest path to high speaks.
F. Collapsing: Collapsing is a good idea, please do it.
G. Signposting: Signposting is a good idea, please do it.
2) Substance
A. Impacts: I always prefer if the impacts are terminalized in the round, the more specific they are the better. I'm not gonna lie, I usually go for nuclear war/extinction in every round I can but I also love the nuanced, topic specific impacts. In terms of impact calculus I usually default to Magnitude>Probability>Time frame but I will vote however you tell me to vote. I also just love impact calculus in general, the more direct comparison and internal link work the better.
B. Counter Plans: I am very familiar with with most of the common types(delay, PIC, consult, 50 states, etc), and generally think counter plan debate can be super interesting and educational. That being said, the counter plan needs to have a strong net benefit (either a disad/case turn you avoid or an external net benefit) and you should articulate why your counter plan captures the advantages and resolves the aff. See Kritique section for perms.
C. DA's: Love them, read lots of them. Explain how they turn the aff.
3) Theory
A. General Stuff: I read a ton of theory, and I am very familiar with topicality and framework arguments. In my opinion, if you are going for theory you should collapse to it - if you want T to be a voting issue, there should be 12 minutes of T in the block. That being said, bad topicality is really really bad, so read these arguments at your own risk.
B. Abuse: I have no problem voting on potential abuse so long as it is well explained and the other team doesn't tell me not to. If you can articulate proven abuse then you're pretty sure to get my ballot
C. RVI's: I think RVI's need to be explained when they are first said in order to be legit voting issues. Spreading 7 random RVI's on a theory shell probably isn't the best way to get my ballot.
D. Competing Interps/Reasonability: I almost always default to competing interpretations over reasonability; I think to win reasonability you need clear reasons why an offense defense paradigm is bad in addition to a clear brightline for what it means to be reasonable.
E. MG Theory/Condo: I'm open to pretty much any type of MG theory you wanna run but I'm not gonna be a happy camper if the PMR is 5 minutes of new offense that wasn't in the MG shell. I'm fine with conditionality, I'm also fine voting on condo bad theory. I assume that all advocacy's are conditional unless otherwise stated.
F. Disclosure: I'm super down to vote on disclosure if it is well executed. I always disclosed whenever I competed in evidentiary debate, but I will listen to arguments that disclosure is bad.
4) Kritiques
A. General: I'm game for listening to whatever you want to read so you do you. My favorite K's are usually structural in nature with concrete alternatives. The only thing to note is that I don't have the most extensive lit base, (Marx, Berlant, Agamben, Fanon, a little Deleuze) so please explain whatever your lit is otherwise I probably won't understand it. This bit is important because I generally will not vote for arguments that I don't understand. If after the round I still don't understand what the alternative actually does than I probably won't vote for you. The only arguments I am not super confident evaluating are performative aff's or K's.
B. K Aff's/FW-T: K aff's are fine so long as you can actually win that they are fine in the round. I also generally prefer that the answers to framework aren't just generic cross applications from the aff. I go for FW-T in most of my rounds so do with that what you will; I'm totally down to vote for FW-T but I also hold teams to a pretty high standard for justifying why topicality matters in the context of the aff.
C. Perms: I typically consider perms to be a test of competition but I'm down for evaluating perm's as an advocacy if you give me compelling reasons why. I also don't think perms are especially offensive on their own; I would rather vote on a piece of offense, like a link turn, than on just a permutation. When answering the perm you should provide specific reasons why the perm doesn't resolve the K or causes some external impact; I think the argument that "the links are independent DA's to the perm" is rather lazy and nonsensical absent more concrete explanations for why the link means that the inclusion of the aff makes the alt non solvent.
I am a very lay judge, so please speak legibly and do not spread. One main thing that I look for is the use of logic in your arguments. I know that debate is very heavily reliant on evidence and cards, but if you can connect those cards to your argument or refute arguments without solely using cards, I will favor your side.
I am a sophomore Public Forum debater from the Cambridge School who has competed at multiple tournaments on the NAT Circuit. In a round I look for clear structure, terminated impacts, and effective weighing when deciding who to vote for. Please don't spread and/or run progressive arguments (especially in Public Forum) and speak clearly and respectfully to your opponents. Assume I have no prior knowledge of the resolution.
Good luck
This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.
Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it
All the best!
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
-I like sign-posting
-I like quick off time road maps
Hi everyone,
I'm a college junior from the Bay Area and debated for 5 years throughout middle and high school. I primarily competed in Varsity Public Forum (3 years) but participated in Varsity Lincoln Douglas as well (2 years).
I judge on logic supported heavily by credible evidence. Please do not spread. I will flow speeches but will not cut you off. Respect your opponents; do not raise your voice. I enjoy a good cross-examination. I'm comfortable with framework debates and am open to hearing counterplans in LD only. Weighing is critical, especially in summary and final focus.
Please share with me a document where cards for each of your speeches can be found. Please also share a copy of your case so I can follow along as you read.
I will award speaker points as I see fit based on your rhetoric and eloquence and will not discriminate on the basis of accents/speaking disabilities.
Good luck and see you in round.
I am Nimish Jain, I am an incoming freshmen at Indiana University Kelley School of Business. I have competed for a while in PF and did a little bit of speech. Please read my paradigm and email me if you have questions.
Email: pandanjain@gmail.com AND borderlineinsanity4@gmail.com
NSD: EXTEND CASE AND A GOOD CHANCE YOU WILL WIN. No reading theory or Ks against Lab 4,5,6 if you wanna read it against lab 1,2,3 go ahead but i will have no clue how to eval it and i wont flow the round. Dont go fast on lab 4,5,6 make it a flay debate.
Short Version:
people say i am tech but i like to consider myself flay
I am the most annoying judge when it comes to warrants. I want every little thing in case to be extended, if you don't extend a warrant into why nuclear war leads to extinction i won't give u extinction.
If you and the opps agree that this round should be a lay round then I can be a lay judge or if yall even want to have a fun round where you just read a bunch of fun stuff (ie.climate change good) then let me know I would be totally down to evaluate it.
Long Version
For any tournament:
I am such a mid debater. Feel free to stalk me. Lay debate is superior but I enjoy tech too.
Top 14 at nationals. 3x Gold TOC (prom is the same day :(, i prefer my social life over debate), 2x Nationals, a bunch of random awards feel free to stalk me :)
Update: I have the right to drop you if I believe you are being racist, homophobic, and etc. I believe debate should be a safe space and I wont allow you to advance if you act rude. This also applies to cross. I really hate seeing crosses where 1 person is just talking. I want to see a nice cross where both teams are respectful. Just done be mean in general.
I want case the disclosed to me:I want the doc and the cards. Also rebuttal doc will be nice. You don't have to send it to the opponents but please send it to me. How to send an email
Topic Knowledge: If it is public forum i know the topic otherwise any other event i don't know anything.
Evidence Sharing: You can call for evidence but like please don't like call for 100 cards otherwise I will knock your speaks down. Btw after round I will probs be asking for cards so if I do plz send it to me. How to cut a card
Tech> Truth
Speed: I don't care if you speak fast. I always speak fast in round. But if you do speak fast, please send speech doc. Otherwise, if I don't catch something I won't evaluate it.
Weighing: Please do it in SUMMARY AND FF. If it is not in both then i don't evaluate the weighing. I also like simple weighing like magnitude and stuff. If you are going to give complex weighing explain it well. How to weigh. I will evaluate new weighing in first FF. Unless the other teams says 2nd FF is too late to bring up new weighing then I wont evaluate it if they dont say it then I will evaulate it.
2nd Rebuttal: YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE. If you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal then i immediately look at 1st speaking teams flow and if they have access to their case then no matter what they will win. How to give a rebuttal
Summary and FF: They should be pretty much the same. NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FF. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE. How to give a summary
Cross: I don't care. I wont listen to cross. How to do good cross
Warranting/Implications: Plz provide a warrant and EXTEND it. Tho if you do extend without warranting and the opponents do not call you out I might give you the arg. But if they do call you out then I won't consider the response. Debate has become very Blibby and I hate blibbyness. PLEASE IMPLICATE I BEG. I KNOW WHAT YOUR DEFENSE IS DOING USUALLY BUT I WON'T EVAL IT IF U DIDNT TELL ME.
warranted ev>warranted analytics>unwarranted ev (UNLESS IT IS A STAT, I LOVE NUMBERS!!!!)>unwarranted analytics
Theory and K's: Also I wouldn't run theory in MS :). I understand theory and I will evaluate if it is run properly. I am ok with K's. I am also ok with performance and non-topical. What theory is I THNK DISCLOSURE ON WIKI IS GOOD AND PARAPHRASING IS BAD I WILL HACK FOR THESE. Thanks to Eastridge MV for teaching me Killjoy Fem K I learned a lot
SIGNPOSTING IS NECESSARY: I need it otherwise I will be very confused and you don't want that happening.
Prepping: You have to time your own speech and prep. I won't do it because I am too lazy to.
Presumption: I am personally against presumption. I want to vote for the better debater so if I can't find a way to vote I will vote off a couple of things (based on priority).
- Depending on my mood lower lab gets the win
-
If u tell me to vote for u off presumption then I will (But give me a reason why u deserve the presumption vote)
-
Who did the better link extensions
-
Who was the better lay debater
-
Who did the better weighing (if both teams lost case)
LINK EXTENSION: THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN SUMMARY AND BEYOND. IF NOT I DROP YOUR CASE.
If I am judging speech:
Have fun. I want to be entertained by your speech. Don't just give me the general 3 points. Give me something that makes you stand out because if you stand out you will do better. But if you stand out and fail then u will get low. A lot of times when i did speech i sang during my speech. Some of my favorite songs I have sang were hindi songs or nursery rhymes. I have even sang let it go in the past. But beware if u do that it better make sense.
LD judging: If I am judging LD then treat me like a flay. You can run whatever you want but you gotta explain it to me. I am totally down to judge Ks and stuff but dont expect me to fully understand it
I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.
Hi there -
Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge.
1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!
Be nice to your opponents in the round. If you are rude in crossfire or speeches, I will drop your speaker points.
2. Provide full cards.
When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.
3. Weigh it.
Make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.
4. Make sure to time yourself.
5. Don’t spread.
Happy debating!
1. I am a parent/judge. I am ok with any argument as long as there is sufficient evidence for the case. Arguments should be concise and straight to the point.
2. Please speak clearly and not too fast. Clarity is the key and I want to be able to properly understand your point to effectively judge you.
3. Maintain a clear speech order (do not jump around from contentions to refutations, etc.)
4. During CrossX please fully answer all of the questions asked. I think an effective CrossX is very important.
5. Please be respectful towards others and have fun!
I have mainly done public forum and world school, and a little bit of policy, in high school. I am fine with most argumentations. Remember to stay respectful in the round!
Experience: I am a current high school debater who has done lincoln douglas debate (lay/traditional style) for several years.
Do: Impacts are super important, and I will not infer them into your arguments. Weigh your impacts against your opponents, make it clear why your world is better. I will entertain limited theory or Ks if it seems warranted and is very well explained, to both me and your opponent. It is in your best interest to signpost, especially if you are doing a non-LD event. If I am unfamiliar with the event, it will be harder for me to format my flow, and anything you do to make that easier will be beneficial to you. Additionally, be a good person.
Don't: I'm very unsympathetic to debaters who use weird or niche arguments to try and confuse or throw off less experienced debaters, please try to genuinely engage in the debate. Please don't lie about or misconstrue your evidence, it's a horrible thing to do, and could result in an automatic loss. Do no attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Do not run anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and do not say anything of this nature to your opponent.
Overall, debate is meant to be an enjoyable and interesting activity, so give it your all, and have fun!
Hello there!
Some things to consider:
Cases:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
Speed:
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact:
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash:
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
Off-Case:
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Refutes:
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Other:
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
I have been judging since 2018 in tournaments from the rookie to varsity levels. I have been a lawyer in the past and like to view both viewpoints with good supporting evidence. Support for your contentions have to hold solid ground.
I also love clarity over ambiguity. I do not prefer spreading/speaking fast.
I've done PF and Parli debate for a handful of years, and I'm affiliated with Mountain House High School.
If you need to get in contact with me after round, or if cards need to be shared, my email is uditkarthik@gmail.com
For general stuff, check out Lizzie Su's paradigm here.
For more specific stuff:
I'm fairly tabula rasa. However, having done Parli, I have a preference towards a more logical debate over just pulling out random cards. You need to give me a reason to believe what you're saying besides just name-dropping a card; if the logic behind the claim makes no sense, I'll more easily buy refutations against the point based on the rationality of the entire argument.
I'm fine with theory, LARP, Phil, and Kritiks. I'm not the best with tricks, but I will vote for them if need be.
Make sure to actually weigh in your speech. Simply saying, "We win on this argument," and then not explaining why you win with the argument won't get you the ballot.
Speaking scale (taken from Vishnu Vennelakanti because I'm even lazier):
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Online Debate: In the event, you get cut out, I will ask that you resume your speech from whatever your opponent or I last flowed.
Etiquette:
- Do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments.
- If you are rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, etc I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you if it's a big enough issue. Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you can be mean.
If there is a problem or you think something is wrong (like shady evidence), tell me ASAP so we can pause the debate if needed and solve the issue. If there is a disagreement about the content of a card, I will call for the card at the end of the debate.
Debate:
- LD!! Framework: I want to see strong justifications (please have a card, don't just run framework without having a card, it seems like you haven't researched the topic or don't care about the debate at all) during the framework portion and strong links to the framework throughout the debate.
- When you extend, don't just extend tags, extend cards + impacts or just impact in case time is low.
- When you are making refutations use blocks and evidence! If you don't have blocks, please make some blocks. I like evidence, but I will settle for analytical arguments if both sides don't have warrants.
- Signpost during your speeches and cite the year & author (the last name is fine if you want to give credentials to weigh the evidence that's great!) of your cards. It's ridiculous how many people don't, I'm literally just hearing the resolution and I have no clue what the common arguments so if you start refuting things without specifying what it is, I'm not gonna try to play connect the dots to figure out what you're doing. It's not hard, I'm sure most of you can do it.
- Once you drop something, you cannot come back to it. *If your impacts are better, I might disregard. If you're good on the flow, you have good impact calc, but you drop one non-crucial argument, I might disregard.
- If you bring up an argument in cx but don't later in the round, then it's useless.
Policy!!
- Tech > Truth
- Slow down on analytics and tags!
DA
- specify on link stories
- Do the impact comparison so I don't have to do all the work thx
CP
- tell me what the NB is and how it solves!
- do the line by line well
Speaks/Drop:
- debate skills > talking pretty, you can be a polished speaker AND a flow debater
- If you bring up new evidence or new arguments in a later speech where the opponent does not have a chance to respond, I will tank your speaks (you won't walk out with anything higher than 24) same thing for new evidence, don't bring new evidence when the other team will not get to respond. That's bad faith and I will drop your speaks and potentially even your side if it becomes a key argument.
- I really really hate when you tell me how I should be voting, I am pretty sure I can vote for myself, so use that time to build your arguments, your links, etc.
- I am fine with speed, be like Eminem if that's what ya want, but I do not want to watch spit fly and just hear heaving. If you are going too fast for me to understand, I'll just say clear. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow so when you extend or cross-apply, your side will be missing pieces
- If you make me laugh, it will boost your speaks :))
Hello debtors,
I am a new parent judge. Please try not to spread, I am afraid that I can't effectively judge. Good Luck!
If you guys drop your Fortnite usernames in the chat first, you get a 30 for speaker points.
In all reality, I dislike theory and K and prefer the practicality of the topic at hand.
I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.
All the best!
*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*
I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.
Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.
You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.
Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.
I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.
I am based out of East Bay, California.
I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).
Look for substance/content and clarity in the overall dialogue.
Parent judge with some experience
I will take notes
Don't spread, you will lose me
Extend all your arguments
If its in cross but not in a speech, I won't vote on it
Weigh your impacts
Please avoid technical arguments
If there is an email chain add me: srivatsan.laxman@gmail.com
DA, CP, K, whatever you run is chill, just make sure that your opponents and I know what you're talking about. Debate however you feel you will do best. I will adapt to you. It's your debate, not mine.
Be kind during cross-x. Talking over one another is severely irritating for both debaters, and the judge, so please don't do it. Debate is an educational activity, not one to humiliate others. Keep cross-xs effective and strategic. Cross-x is binding.
I'm big on organization. Line by line. Do the work for me, make flowing easy. Make sure to signpost. I can handle any level of speaking speed, but please be clear and loud if possible. I understand that you may not have the best quality microphone or have WiFi issues; however, do your best to make the round as clear as possible. Any analytical arguments I cannot hear, I will not flow.
I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronouns, or if there's anything you wish to communicate that will affect the round, please let me know before it begins.
My email is joellelee316@gmail.com. I'd like to be included when/if documents are exchanged. Do your thing. I am not here to limit you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote for you. Write my ballot in your 2NR/2AR.
See you in round! :)
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). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . 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 a 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.
- 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.
==============================================
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.
Hi! My name's Madi, and I competed in LD for all four years of high school. Feel free to run whatever you want as long as you explain it well, and I'm good with speed as long as your opponent is.
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.
My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com
For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.
Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC
My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.
I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.
To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.
I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.
So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.
Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:
Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.
I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.
I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.
Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.
Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.
College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.
lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
Hi! My name's Jackson Lopez and I'm currently a high school Sophomore with a background in Parliamentary debate.
Preferences: Try and avoid spreading if you can, it can get pretty hard to flow and in my eyes it drags down the round overall. I'll probably weigh the round based on impacts, so that being said, I recommend specifying what they are and signposting at the start of the round would be a huge help for flowing. I'm not completely anti-theory, but theory alone isn't gonna sway the ballot.
Besides that, try and be courteous to your opponents, and I look forward to an awesome round!
I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.
It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.
Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.
Have fun, do your best and good luck!
Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.
Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.
When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.
Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)
I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.
Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.
Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.
Have fun debating!
First of all, thank you for all the hard work behind this.
Enjoy and learn from the process.
Respect your opponents.
Don't spread!
I expect you are very familiar with the material instead of just reading the doc.
I value comparison. So clearly tell me why your evidences outweigh the opponent's! Write my RFD in your last speech.
My name is Michael Lynch. I am an English teacher. I did four years of forensics in high school. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, impromptu, national/international extemporaneous, congress, and parliamentary debate. I went to state twice in speech/debate and once to nationals in congress. For five years, I was an assistant coach for the Kern Regional Forensics League. I started a debate team at Arvin High School in 2022.
THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE RULE IN FORENSICS: Treat your opponent as you want to be treated. If you don’t want your opponent to go over time, don’t do it yourself. If you want your opponent to play fair and not fabricate evidence, do the same. Treat your opponents with dignity and respect. You are expected to be professional; go out of your way to be ethical. Never roll your eyes, lose your composure, or resort to insults.
I hate the following things: spreading, speaking so fast you sound like an auctioneer, improper English, critiques, and off topic arguments. I expect debates to be about the resolution at hand. Do not come up with an irreverent point such as “Before we can debate, we need to declare the official language of Saturn to be Swedish.” Please do not go over time.
I prefer a few strong, well-developed arguments rather than ten weak attacks. I evaluate rounds equally on content and delivery. I care about eye contact, clarity, voice inflections, body language, and persuasiveness.
I have heard the following sentence hundreds of times: "As a 'brief' off time roadmap. I will address the arguments that my opponent made and then I will strengthen my own." This is not necessary.
A special note for impromptu speakers: please make sure your speech is about the topic. I am fine with stock examples as long as it actually works with your topic. I despise the canned “book—person—movie” formula. It is obvious if your “impromptu” speech is always “To Kill a Mockingbird, Steve Jobs, and Finding Nemo.”
Junior at Archbishop Mitty
He/Him
3 years of pf and counting
- strike me if you want to run Ks, and stray away from theory (unless its really bad)
- actual cards > paraphrasing
- speaking efficiently >> reading 300+ wpm
- weighing>>> not weighing
- being nice >>>>>>>>>>>> being rude
Demon Slayer Reference = 30 speaks
chain: pranaymacherla@gmail.com
good luck!!!
Hello Debaters,
I have been judging Public Forum debate tournaments since fall of 2020.
I look for clarity, consistency and quality of delivery. Please try not to speak too fast so it is easier to follow. It is important to be respectful to your opponents. Also, please explain your arguments in plain terms.
Please ensure your data and stats are factual and supported by credible sources.
Finally, don't forget to have fun!
Thank you and good luck!
Hello Everyone!
Make sure you are timing yourself while saying your speech.
Be clear and don't speak too fast.
When someone calls for a card, make sure they receive it.
Lastly, have fun!
I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and limit use of jargon.
I prefer moderate speed while speaking. I vote for speaking clearly and convincing arguments.
Hi, i'm Divya Matta,
Im a Lincoln Douglas debater from Mountain House High School.
If you don't understand something in this paradigm or want clarifications feel free to ask me in round, I actually encourage it.
Debate: (not including Congress:)
Speaking/Args:
- I will flow your arguments and I am okay with fast talking, but I am not comfortable with spreading.
- I prefer to judge on your arguments rather than speaking style, but will mention if there is something that you can improve on with fluency and word economy. Either way, how you convey your arguments is not AS important as the content of said argument, then again I have to be able to understand it.
- This means try to avoid unorganized arguments and speech's and pleaseee sign post!! I prefer arguments based off evidence and do not appreciate sweeping generalizations.
-Assume that I do not have your case in front of me, and am not familiar with recent news on the topic, so please explain your arguments thoroughly.
Framework:
- Simply stating your V and VC is not enough to win the framework debate. Explain to me how your side supports your framework, and why your opponent explicitly does not.
- However, winning the framework debate does not neccecarily mean that you will win my ballot.
Miscellaneous:
- Understand your arguments and evidence!!! In a situation where you and your opponent have conflicting evidence you have to be able to explain why your's is more relevant and/or more credible.
- Being rude to your opponent or not addressing your opponent respectfully is a big no-no!
- Question your opponent's arguments and/or evidence, but please do not question your opponent's intelligence cause that's just rude. (trying to make your opponent look dumb doesn't make you look smarter)
- Tell me why you won the round, I love good voters and will genuinely consider them when making my decisions
- Being overly aggressive in cross-ex won't get you a L but it's kind of annoying
- Asking the same question over and over again expecting a different answer is not the way to go....
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
- I really hope I will not have to tell you that you are going over time. I will give you 15 seconds to wrap up your speech, but will have to cut you off at about 20 seconds over.
Debate PF at Dougherty Valley but have experience in policy, LD, and speech events
add me on the email chain (ask in person)
tech>truth
weigh! it's fun and wins rounds
speed is fine but sending a doc is always safer and better
-
If its 8 in the morning i probably will be asleep so advise against just blasting into top speed immediately
not afraid to make an 'i didn't understand it' rfd
I disclose if the tournament allows and I can disclose speaks if everyone in the round wants (i give 29.6 block unless you made the round unsafe but if you look to the bottom it's very easy to get a 30)
don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or xenophobic. Just be a decent person!
TABULA ROSA!
PF
Everything in the final should be in summary (obviously, don't know why I should have to say that)
If you have two cards that directly contradict each other, please weigh them. If I get no reason to prefer one card over another, then I won't evaluate either.
I don't listen to cross so if someone concedes something in a cross then mention it in your speech. By that I mean I barely pay attention to content and lowkey think cross can be the funniest part of the debate
To save time just send all the cards you are reading before your speech. I can also tell when you steal prep so I will dock your speaks
Progressive arguments require a speech doc and no paraphrasing
I don't mind theory but I would prefer not to listen to it.
-
Usually theory debates just become teams yelling at each other about their opponent’s character and gets overly aggressive for no reason
-
Paraphrasing is bad if they don’t have cut cards and i don’t care about disclosure
Policy
Don’t know anything about the topic so just explain like im genuinely stupid
Like DAs and CPs
Ks were not really my strat but i like them
Never read k affs and usually read fw when i hit it
LD
No tricks or phil
Preferences (for strikes)
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 2
Kritik - 3
Non-T Kritik - 4
Tricks - 5 (strike)
Phil - 5 (strike)
Performance - 5 (strike)
Speaks
tournaments are stressful and I don't want to make it worse by giving bad speaks
30 speaks if you reference Taylor Swift
30 speaks if you bring me food
If you make the round fun by telling jokes or making everyone feel comfortable, i give 30 speaks.
Congress
my sister placed 5th at TOC, 5th at Nationals, and championed ASU, and made finals of several national circuit tournaments so look at her paradigm. She is Divya Mehrotra.
I love crystal speeches if done well and if you take that risk to give one then, please do proper weighing
Pronouns: He/Him
General stuff:
I'm a sophomore at Archbishop Mitty, i've competed in PF for 3 years.
I'll always flow but don't rely on me having everything down so be sure to stay organized.
I'll flow cross but won't evaluate anything not brought into a speech.
Evidence:
If you're sharing evidence add me to the chain: rohan.menon4@gmail.com
I won't look at specific cards unless you ask me to or there’s major conflict over what the card says and its key to the round.
Cards must be cut, if you're paraphrasing you need to have the cut card on hand.
Decorum:
I expect the round to stay respectful. Homophobia, racism, sexism etc. will not be tolerated (expect the L).
PF:
tech > truth
As fair as speed goes I can handle speed but going too fast might screw you over if I miss anything, only speak fast if you can speak clearly.
I don't mind evaluating arguments that are controversial, they carry just as much weight as stock arguments in my opinion.
Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.
Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.
I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.
Top level:
- I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
- Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
- Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
- I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.
Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:
- I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
- Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
- Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
- I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.
Stats:
- Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
- Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
- I have sat 6 times in 53 elims
Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.
- Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
- Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
- Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
- "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
- Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
- Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
- Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper
My Knowledge:
- I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
- I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
- I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
- I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..
K affs
I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.
T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.
I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.
Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.
Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.
Some other advice:
- "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
- Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
- I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
- Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.
Topicality against policy affs
I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.
I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.
Speaker points
When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.
If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.
I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.
Ethical violations
I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.
Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.
My name is Surya Devasenapathy and I debate at Dougherty Valley High school.
Add me to the email chain please
(I flow, so don't extend through ink PLS it hurts my head)
Speaks
30 : Great interaction with content within debate, won on the flow and had great clarity during speeches.
28 - 29 : Had a good round and capitalized on dropped links/args, didn't make any fundamental mistakes.
26-27 : I struggled to understand you during your speeches, and couldn't get the majority of what you said onto my flow.
<26 : Abusive language and arguments during the round. Was offensive to other competitors, and violated the norms/rules of public forum.
Evidence sharing
If a card takes more than 2 minutes to send on the email chain, I will strike the evidence off my flow.
Misconstrued EV will be punished through judge intervention, so please send cut cards that are from good sources.
These are cards. Here's even a link to Verbatim, a macro template that works with Microsoft Word so that card cutting is really easy.
On the Flow
If you go over time by more than 10 seconds, I will automatically stop flowing
Use cross-ex efficiently, and please for goodness sakes don't give a 2 min speech and then ask your opponents, do you agree?
(It looks a lot better to bring things like that up in speech)
If you don't extend conceded turns or terminalized defense through summary from rebuttal, I will drop it off my flow.
Link extend throughout the backhalf
Weighing in summary should be introduced and responded to.
If there is no comparative weighing or meta weighing done, 27 speaks for both teams.
Tech debate
I am not too comfortable with voting off theory or Kritiks, so run them at your own risk.
If the argument is well thought out and not frivolous , I will evaluate it.
In general paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good.
I would prefer that both teams disclose on the email chain 5 minutes before the round(cut cards, but a script works as well), but if it is against your school policy that is alright.
LAST NOTES
Spreading is fine as long as you send a speech doc.
If I can't hear you I will unmute and say clear. If the problem persists I will stop flowing.
Hello debaters,
I have been debating for two years now and I participate in both Parliamentary and Public Forum debates.
The only thing I would like to see in any debate round is signposting.
Talking speed isn't a problem so feel free to talk at your own pace.
For my PF debaters, arguing in crossfires is completely cool with me as long as I can hear the questions and answers.
With joy,
Harini Nagappan
He/Him
Please tell me why I should prefer your evidence/analytics over your opponents instead of just bringing up a card that says the opposite. Have a proper clash and weighing on why you deserve the ballot.
- Speak at whatever pace you want to but I prefer if it's understandable for everyone in the debate.
- pls weigh, warrant, signpost.
- Don't be rude throughout the debate but cross especially. Any form of bigotry will not be tolerated (homophobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, etc.)
- I'm okay with judging on theory and kritiks but if you don't have a proper understanding of what you're trying to run I don't suggest it.
- I won't look at specific cards unless you ask me to or there’s major conflict over what the card says and its key to the round.
- Cards must be cut, if you're paraphrasing you need to have the cut card on hand.
If you have any specific questions don't be afraid to ask before the round begins.
Have fun and good luck!
GO CLEAR SLOW
SON IS HELPING WRITING THIS PARADIGM FOR ME
MY SECOND LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH SO GO SLOW (IDEALLY LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED WORDS PER KILOMETER)
PLEASE NO THEORY
KRITIK IS A MUST. MAKE KRITIK REFERENCES FOR EXTRA POINTS. LOVE WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION AND SAFARI.
BE NICE KIDDOS
IIT CLASS OF 1993, PROFESIONAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
Hello there. My name is Brian Nguyen and this is my judging paradigm. I have no preference on how fast you go nor do I mind the various arguments that you may have. I have debate experience, but that should not matter as I will only judge the quality of your debate with respect to your current opponent.
Good luck and have fun!
Hello, I'm quite new to judging, so I'm not going to go into the minor details of the round. I'm just going to look at how well you have researched, how you respond to your opponent's contentions and how you fare during cross-ex.
Please don't speak fast, so no spreading. If I don't understand what you're saying then I won't be able to judge you appropriately.
Good luck, and have fun!
Hey, my name is Kevin Ozomaro; I am a communication graduate student and graduate assistant coach at the University of the Pacific. Before my time at UOP, I competed for Delta college and CSU Sacramento, where I competed in parli and LD debate. That being said, most of my debate knowledge is geared towards LD debate. That doesn't mean I don't understand parli; it just means that I'm more comfortable with arguments commonly found in LD. I've coached debate at all levels, from k-12 to college. I have learned a lot over my time in forensics, but that doesn't mean I know everything! If you are reading something that a communication grad student wouldn't understand at 500 words a minute, maybe you shouldn't read it or slow down and explain it to me. Below are some basics to how I view and judge debate.
NPTE People:
Low pref if:
1. you like K affs that are confusing( Sunbutthole K, pretty much any racist shittt)
2. You think condo or not condo is the most important thing in the world. Yes I'm from UOP but I don't care mannnn
3. you think reject is a great alt
High pref if:
1. Afro anything K / identity K
2. neolib K
3. Heg debate/ or militarism or militarization
4. not a fan of spreading
The Basics: because I know you don't want to read...
-
In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)
-
Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds
-
NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)
-
I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
-
Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse
-
I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
-
I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise
-
Tell me why you win.
- If you are rude I will drop you. Its kinda simple don't be a butthole. Examples are not slowing and spreading someone out of the round.
General Approach to Judging:
I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.
Organization: is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.
I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.
If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.
Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate, I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik. If I can't understand the K I will not vote on it, doesn't matter if it goes dropped if I have zero idea what is going on I will not vote on it. That goes for both K affs and neg K's.
I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence/cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical/philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.
Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.
Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can't do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.
Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is "antithetical" to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.
Evidence: If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.
Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.
Thanks, Ryan guy of Mjc
About Me:
Pronouns: he/him
I am a freshman at Dougherty Valley High School and I debate in Varsity Public Forum.
General:
My Email is msg4satwik@gmail.com. Please send an email with cut cards or case docs to me, so I can look over evidence easily when asked to.
Label email chains adequately with the following template: "{Tournament Name} {Round Number} {AFF Team Name} vs. {NEG Team Name}"
Please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. Speed-wise, I'm fine with anything, however, do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I flow on a computer, so it only harms you to speak unclearly.
Tech>Truth. I vote for fully warranted args that are not racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I try to be a tabula rasa, however, there have been instances where I broke that promise.
Cross:
I don't flow cross. I don't really care either. Just don't be mean. Also, I know I said I don't care about the cross, but try to ask smart questions.
Rebuttal:
Read as many Turns/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. The second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too.
Evidence:
I am fine with exchanging evidence through an email chain but use it sparingly. I don't want any team to feel like their opponents are using the round to leech off of their prep.
Please don't Misconstrue evidence it is bad ethics for debate and it will not be tolerated. Also please only send cut cards. Check this link if you don't know how to cut cards, Also check this for an example of a cut card.
I will only look at evidence if I am deliberately asked to in speech, it seems too good to be true, or there is a massive clash over it.
Backhalf
EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND...
WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH...
Impact calculus isn't the only version of weighing. Please try to do a more narrative form of debate, where you're not only looking at the policy's impact but also the entire link chain. I enjoy people reading large OVs and Metaweighing at the top of summary, but these should be extended from rebuttal. NO NEW ARGS!!!
Progressive Debate:
Theory>K>Case. I know the essentials of progressive debate, and I think it is valid to read it in Public Forum. I'm not the best K Judge, but if I get time to read your authors at the end of the round I'll evaluate it. If you read frivolous theory I'll strike it, but I won't intervene. It is essential that the other team reads an RVI for me to drop them on their frivolous theory. I don't have a preference on disclosure or paraphrasing, so I'm probably the best judge to have theory debate on.
If you read some quasi-CP that is modified for PF, I'll evaluate it as long as you can argue it isn't abusive. But, I do hold these to be major forms of offense, so if AFF can successfully defend against it, that'll suck.
Tricks debate is not meant for Public Forum, so don't do it.
Framework should be ran at the top or bottom of constructive or rebuttal. It cannot be read first in the back half. I default to util.
Speaks:
I don't really think speaks matter that much, but if you do the following you'll be fine. I am comfortable with almost all speaking styles and speeds but make sure to give a speech doc if you are going to spread.
Other things I dock speaks off for:
- Being mean in cross. Debate is a fun event don't dominate the other person in cross.
- Stealing prep
- Going 15 seconds over time
- Reading a progressive arg and not knowing how it works
- Reading a theory that you violate
If nothing is done from this list then you can expect a very high speaks count for all the debaters.
Other Stuff I Like:
- Comparative weighing.
- Signposting.
- Brief Roadmaps.
- Strategic Cross.
- Weighing as soon as possible.
- Summary/ff parallelism.
You get +1.5-2 speaks if you're funny, say a hip-hop reference, anime reference, or tell me your favorite song.
Conclusion:
Overall, debate in my view is a means of discourse on important topics. This activity is a privilege to have, so try to have fun and learn from any mistakes. I know sometimes debate gets competitive, but try to stay calm and respectful.
Feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions or concerns. Also, shout out to Ivan Shah for letting me use his paradigm as a boilerplate.
I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. Flowing all speeches except for cx.
- Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
- I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
- Tech > Truth
Argument expectations -
Extensions:
Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.
Weighing:
impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.
Other:
Signpost/roadmaps:
Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.
Theory(PF):
I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.
That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!
Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks
Evidence:
I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.
Non-PF Debaters:
I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.
I have judged 5 tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.
1. Do not speed, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
Clarice Perez’s Judging Philosophy
- I debated in Public Forum style debate for one year in high school, as well as two years of LD, NPDA, and IPDA style debate in college.
- I would consider my self a flow judge and stick pretty strongly to voting on the flow.
- I attended a performing arts school for four years and, I do appreciate some level of passion brought into the debate as performance does play a large aspect in selling arguments
- Won nationals and states in Parli and IPDA
Specifics
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain. clariceperez@outlook.com
Speed: I don’t mind a little bit of speed however if it is being used in an abusive way I will take than it to consideration.I will flow all arguments I can but if your team is going to spread understand that most likely not all arguments will be evaluated due to being unable to write them down. I will take into consideration if your opponent is stating "clear" repetitively and you are continuing to go at the same speed. If you do call speed repetitively do not go up and spread during your speech, it is not a good look.
Topicality: I will flow whatever is argued, however, I do believe the resolution is worded in a specific way and meant to be interpreted in that way for fairness. With that being said it is the negations job to run a constructed T sheet for me to actually vote on topicality. I will not automatically vote for the negation just because the affirmation was claimed to be non-topical, there needs to be clear abuse proven that this non-topical plan is not allowing the negation to make their arguments. I am not a fan of kritik however if a team is running a kritik against you make sure you fully refute it, I will not automatically vote a team down just for running a k. With that being said, please understand that I really don't like K's and it wouldn't be the best idea to run one in front of me
My Ideal Round: I enjoy hearing a true debate, I don’t love hearing procedural arguments and would prefer to hear argument based clash. Also don't just read cards to me and expect me to buy the argument, evidence is great if there's logic provided with it. If you're going to read evidence spend the time to elaborate and explain the significance of the evidence to your case rather than just spewing statistics at me. I would prefer quality over quantity when it comes to advantages and disadvantages. This makes it much clearer when deciding which area to vote as well as always for maximum time to argue for or against specific points. I always prefer a fair amount of signposting to ensure that arguments are being flowed in the correct areas. Be cordial and keep it friendly, I will pay attention to time so need for unnecessary pointing to a timer if your opponent has gone over time. Impact calculus is always nice for a final focus speech, probability will always weigh heavier than magnitude for me. If you are going to claim nuclear war as an impact really make sure to have the link chain there to see it as a probable impact.
TOC:
Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange
Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute
* * * * *
I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.
Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.
General:
Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.
Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”
If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.
Substance:
If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.
Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.
Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.
In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.
Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.
Theory:
I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA.
If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.
K:
I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.
If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).
If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.
Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.
CPs:
I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.
Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.
FW:
Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.
Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Tricks:
These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.
GOATs:
I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.
Presumption:
Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.
Speaks:
I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.
Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.
—WP
I am a Parent judge with previous experience, prefer moderate pace & clear presentation.
Prefer debates with Clear Arguments, Case Constructs with examples / stats / facts.
Respectful towards other opponents.
Happy Debate!!!
My name is Satish Ponnaluri and I am a parent judge
Congress -
I value speeches that are rightly timed in the progression of the debate. This means I will equally weigh an author who explains the status quo as the same as a speaker who gave a crystal with minimal refutation rehash. I value speaking a lot as well. You need to convince me why I should believe you. That being said, I will drop senators who give rhetoric in lieu of evidence and logic chains.
PO will usually get the top 5 on my ballot if you are adequate with few mistakes. Overall round presence is extremely important, this includes effective cross-ex, round leadership, and familiarity of motions. Other than that, be kind to everyone else in the round and have fun!
Speech Events:
I give weightage to quality of arguments and the evidence provided.
I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.
[last updated 3-16-2024]
Hi my name is Tanya, I competed in NPDA for three years at DVC and in NFA - LD at WKU for two years. I finished top 8 at NFA nats and was second place speaker at the Grand Prix national championship. I graduated in 2023, I'm assistant coaching debate at DVC now.
Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain). Its really easy, you just make a room on speechdrop.net and everyone can upload their docs. You can still save your opponents' cases like this and it's way faster.
!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE
How do you feel about speed?
On carded stuff/analytics in the doc I have a higher threshold for speed, if its not in the doc slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.. You don't need to guess, I will slow you if you're too fast for me. I won't drop you or get mad at you for being too fast but I also won't pretend to have stuff written down that I don't have written down.
I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.
Disclosure
I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading.
Substance
I really don't buy consult or delay counter-plans. You can read them, just know the perm solves for me 99.99% of the time.
Disad and counter plan debate is cool, I enjoy watching it. I like a good advantage counter plan.
K
I like and will vote on Ks, but I won't pretend to understand an alt I don't get.
To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm
To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff
Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.
Can I read non T affs?
Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. As a default T FW comes before the aff, especially in parli.
T
I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't care. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education).
Theory/Procedurals -
I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, diclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous.
I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.
PF Only:
1 - I have the expectation that both debaters are on the same page about what kind of debate they'll be having. If you want to be really fast and really technical that's fine, as long as your opponent is okay with that. I will vote on speed bad.
2 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easy way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything.
3 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few stipulations around tech in PF: Firstly, PF is a lay event. The norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will lose even to awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.
Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF, largely because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.
Introduction
Name: Rishit Pradhan
Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com
School: Stockdale '23
Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)
I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.
//Quarters - Lots of technical pf experience but won't be flowing that rigorously. Be clear, weigh, and have fun
PF debater, 3 years experience.
Lay before 9 AM PST.
General:
- Speak clearly and at a comfortable pace. Do not spread.
- Weigh as much as you can and do comparative analysis
Hey! I’m a Lay LD debater (NSDA Nats 22 qualifier) and a middle school coach. I use she/her pronouns. Here are a few things to keep in mind during your round!
1. Signpost clearly, especially if you’re collapsing arguments or moving to different parts of the flow. Clearly state when/where you are extending impacts/evidence as well!
2. Don't do sketchy extensions. If you mention an argument in your constructive, mostly drop it in refutations, and then completely blow it up in your voters, I’m not going to be comfortable voting on it. Extend important arguments consistently throughout the round.
3. Weigh well and weigh early. Grant your opponent their full impact and then show me why yours still matters more.
4. Don't forget about framework, especially when weighing impacts or giving voter issues. Also, I am all ears for a good framework debate, but if you and your opponent are arguing for pretty much synonymous things, please don’t waste too much time going back and forth over it.
5. Don’t spread out your opponent! I am not a huge fan of spreading online and will vote against you if you are using it in an abusive manner. Regardless of what speed you’re speaking at, make sure you’re always enunciating clearly.
Be respectful! Winning rounds feels great, but it should never be at the cost of your opponent’s well-being. During cross-examination remember that you can be assertive without being rude. If you're discussing sensitive topics, I would appreciate brief trigger warnings in your off-time roadmap or at the top of your case. Use your discretion and be mindful.
For circuit LD: If you and your opponent both agree to run a circuit round and it is allowed by the tournament, that’s fine with me. That being said, I am a lay debater and will need a clear explanation of any niche theory/philosophy arguments.
oh and pls chat with me after the round if you're a taylor swift fan :)
3rd-year policy debater @ Stockdale High School. Competed in CHSSA and Nat Quals.
Add me to the email chain: ruiz.tyler.sagadraca@gmail.com
General Stuff
Though I primarily do Policy debate I am familiar with the structure of PF and LD, but don't expect me to be as technical. Obligatory don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (At this point though it should be common sense).
Policy
T: Unless it's obviously not under the topic I will more likely than not vote on T. You can go for it, but you will have to work hard to convince me that the aff is too small or not competitive enough
CP: Go for it, make sure it's competitive and solves for the Aff and more. The CP is probably one of my most run arguments with the DA so I know it but don't expect me to do the work for you on it.
DA: Same thing as above. Explain the DA well and why you link to the affirmative. If you link and you have enough probability, I'll vote on the DA so do well on that.
Case: Unless it's a K never drop Case.
Other Arguments: I've debated circuit policy so I am familiar with more technical stuff. But make sure you explain it well. It is my philosophy that if you can't explain the argument to a parent judge, then it's not a viable argument.
PF/LD
I have never debated PF or LD, but I have judged a couple of rounds. Follow the procedure and stick to the rules and we should have no problems. Make sure to put the topic in the chat just so we are all on the same page.
P.S. If you make a WH40k reference in your speech I will consider giving extra speaker points.
Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com
I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years
I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast
For me clarity is more important than speed
Hi, I’m Veronica. I was a part of Bear Creek Highschool in Debate and Speech events for 3 years. I currently go to Napa Valley College and in the past assisted my speech professor Ana Petero with college speech and debate.
-
I have very little patience for over-complex, hard to understand, pseudo-intellectual arguments that are designed to confuse your opponents. If I can't understand your arguments, I probably won't give a lot of weight.
-
I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
-
I will dock speaker points for completely incomprehensible spreading.
-
Don't be offensive towards your opponents.
-
Lastly, have fun and be competitive!
Completely fine with spreading and I will keep a detailed flow. No impact calculus or weighing = more difficult for me to vote for you. Don't overcomplicate your arguments especially in the framework debate. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will make me deduct speaker points.
As a speech and debate student myself, i do not judge of of case effectiveness, but the performance. I’m looking for confident, knowledgeable, and effective speakers.
I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.
Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.
I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.
I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.
I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.
Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.
Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)
General:
I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.
Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.
Case:
This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.
Theory:
Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.
Kritiks:
Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.
Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.
Good luck to everyone.
## 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 Nationals 2024
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe; Cal RR Semis, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, and more
- 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
- 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
- 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 weighing allowed, 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 or steal prep
- 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
## 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
- Don't just read all 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.
## 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. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times.
Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle substance rounds as well. 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 am coming into every debate as neutral as possible. I base my judgement on the content and delivery of your speech. I am looking for well-structured fluent speeches that successfully refute your opponent's case. I enjoy case attacks supported by relevant evidence, scientific data, and facts closely related to the given topic. You need to ask constructive questions when weighing the different issues against each other and proactively respond to your opponents in the round. Make sure your resources are reliable and not claiming something that is otherwise. Do not "bluff" and avoid being impolite especially during cross examination.
I weigh the round based on the following criteria:
- Effectively advocate your positions by well-structured and fluent speech
- Precisely refute the case by explaining why your counter-argument is relevant and important
- I value the tactics as well as the delivery during the debate
- Be confident and proactive, and most importantly be respectful
High School Judge. I have competed in PF. Comfortable with spreading. Offtime roadmaps can win you more points. Have fun and be respectful.
I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.
Pronouns: she/her
tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)
General:
Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.
Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.
LD Judging Preferences:
I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.
Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.
Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.
In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.
Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.
When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.
Voting Criteria: (for all events)
I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.
In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.
Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.
Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.
I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)
Email: cus111@gmail.com
Pronouns: She/Her
I am a parent judge, and I have judged LD and PF for about 2 years.
I usually enter the round 20 minutes before the start time, so I strongly recommend that you arrive at least 5 min earlier if possible so we have a few minutes to get ready for the debate.
Speaks -- Average is around 27-28. A good debate is 28-30; if you score less than 26, then there should be something specific for you to reevaluate.
At the end of the round, I end up first evaluating the major issues on both sides, determining who is winning those, and then go down the flow on any smaller issues that were in the speeches, it takes me somewhere around 2-10 minutes to decide and it shouldn’t take any longer.
I value the contentions and rebuttals given in speeches. I am typically tech over truth, but if your arguments are unreasonable then I will not consider them. I prefer that your arguments be convincing, have solid evidence and warrants, and are structured well. I am experienced in judging most traditional arguments (advantages, disadvantages, plans, counterplans, etc).
Hi. I'm a varsity PF debater. For this tournament, treat me like a lay judge (ie: I'll take notes but I won't flow, and I won't follow spreading). That said I do have some likes and dislikes.
1) SIGNPOST - Seriously, signpost. Otherwise, I'm gonna be really confused
2) Be polite - You don't have to be best buds with you're opponents, but don't be mean. That will definitely get you 25 speaks
3) Low-speaks wins - I'm pretty open to giving low-speaks wins (where the losing team has higher speaks).
4) If you want to win the round, I need you to do a good job explaining why you win. Make sure to weigh, and crystalize the round (that means boil down the details of the round into clear big ideas that I can vote off of).
I've judged LD once and parli never, so if I'm judging you in those events, please be clear and explain all terminology
Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com
Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't send chain it's not going on my flow.
Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.
-----------------------------------
LD/Policy TLDR
Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.
If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.
For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.
Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.
I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions
For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.
-----------------------------------
Defaults (I can change if you explain why):
Tech > truth
Comp worlds > truth testing
RVIs good
Competing interps > reasonability
DTD > DTA
-----------------------------------
Random:
Flex prep is fine
Tag team is fine
I will not be timing unless you ask.
Don't care if you sit or stand.
No using rest of cross for prep.
Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.
If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.
Tag team cross is fine.
-----------------------------------
Misc LD/policy things:
I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.
Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.
If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.
Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)
------------------------------------
PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I did PF a a few times. Knowing my LD background, you can feel free to read framework or non-traditional PF arguments. HOWEVER, I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, so if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff be warned that might not end up favorably.
TLDR- If you have a tech panel do what you like, but on a lay panel I will be less flexible so you should act like I'm a somewhat experienced lay judge in such a situation. Additionally, reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.
- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.
- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.
- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.
- No new arguments in final focus.
- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.
------------------------------------
Congress-
- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."
- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.
- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.
- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).
- There is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. If you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. If it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. It's all about trying your best. But, even if you don't perform the best as PO, you can still make ranks by following the above suggestions in the next session!
I am a parent judge. I have judged a few tournaments before in the Bay Area. I like debates that are based on facts and evidence. Impact weighing is very important to me. Please make sure to extend your most important arguments. I do flow the rounds.
Also, try to speak slowly and clearly. If I cannot understand your arguments, I will not be able to count it. Make sure to be respectful to your opponents.
Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her).
lizziesu425@gmail.com - reach out w/ qs
TLDR: second year out, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar
Defaults/changed with a sentence: permissibility negates, policy presumption. i'll assume whatever paradigm issues you do
--no strong argumentative preferences but I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. My threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is higher than it used to be and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr." If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it. also "aspec they didnt" is not a real interp/violation.
--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine
--very good for cp competition stuff, politics, 0 off 1nc, T (but not from a backfile), and util v phil
--fine for the k if you interact with the aff and do lots of judge instruction, but not if you like 6m of overviews, buzzwords, and K tricks with 0m of line by line
--I will intervene in the case of in-round safety concerns (misgendering, etc.)
--evaluate the debate after the 1AC and no aff/neg arguments are logically incoherent.
--2ars should not throw everything at the wall and see what sticks
--debaters should flow the round and take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - please minimize dead time!)
--will usually flow by ear and read ev later
--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions
Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. Speaks will be docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable. Will ignore 30 speaks theory.
--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year. i'll try to be nicer.
Email chain: sun616448@gmail.com
Experience: she/her, 4 years PF, don't really compete in LD but ik how it works
TLDR:
I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is fine as long as you're clear and send a speech doc, speaks avg 28.5 goes up/down from here, also please signpost and warrant or else I won't flow it.
for speech: make it interesting. If you can throw in a harry potter reference I will give you an extra speaker point
PF:
Weighing:
- plz weigh in FF and Summary, impact calc - magnitude timeframe probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc
- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still win
Rebuttal
- neg frontline
- tech > truth, so use cards/evidence
Summary/FF
- anything you bring up in FF must be brought up in summary or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow
- plz don't extend thru ink
- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF
Cross:
- I don't flow cross so anything important in cross that you want on the flow must be brought up in later speeches
Calling for cards:
- you can call for cards in prep/cross idc
Framework:
- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up
also plz warrant and extend warrants
LD/any other format
- Did not compete in it but knows how it works
speech:
- talk clearly
- be interesting
I am parent Judge, this is my first time judging, i grade on speaking skills & effort spent on researching the topic.
Be nice. Interesting nba or tennis references can get you extra speaks. Don't be a Toby.
Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.
Judging Preferences:
- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.
I am a parent judge.
Please speak both clearly and slowly during your speeches. This includes not using technical jargon. It would also help if you organized your speeches.
Please explain your voters in simplest terms too.
Debate experience:
I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).
Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com
Me Likey / Me No Likey:
LARP - 1
K's - 2
Phil / Theory - 3
Tricks - not unless it's Halloween
Speed:
I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.
Kritiks:
I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.
K Affs:
I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.
Speaker Points:
I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.
Circuit LD Paradigm
Email: selenateng24@gmail.com
Edit for NSD: I'm a fine judge for all of you, read what you want. Especially if it's something other than the stock aff/inflation DA.
Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less lenient with super short blips than you might expect; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING SO BE SLOW AND CLEAR.
Generic
- Default to truth testing, permissibility/presumption negate
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict a massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I'm pretty tab and don't hack against arguments that other judges might not vote on. But I won't vote for legitimately problematic things (ex. if you start screaming slurs against your opponent).
Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, it can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.
Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever. However, this doesn't mean you can rely on my knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3
K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.
Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but it's fine if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.
Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.
PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL
Email: selenateng24@gmail.com
Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:
- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.
I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.
Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.
I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.
Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.
Good luck!
Hello Everyone! Find the event you are competing below and read the paradigm!
Congress:
I want to see proper etiquette in round and respect to every single Senator/Representative.
Argumentation, Creativity, and Presentation are my top 3 things I look for when I judge.
Argumentation: Your arguments need to make sense. You need to have a clear warrant/evidence and you need to show how your evidence links to your position.
Creativity: Be funny. Give me a funny intro or make me laugh and that's a huge bonus to your rank. Congress invitational rounds are very long and some speeches get blended together. Stand out. Puns are huge for me and originality is key. Arguments that are unique to the debate/not stock arguments, add a lot to the debate and I really appreciate it.
Presentation: Be presentable. Act like you want to be here. Effective gestures and facial expressions add a lot to what you are talking about.
Flow of Debate:
If you are speaking in the 5th or 6th cycle, try not to give constructive speeches but crystallization speeches/consolidation speeches. Giving constructive speeches late kind of ruins the flow of the debate.
Cross Exam:
I only mark off points if there is a lack of knowledge of content or presentation that isn't adequate. (example: stuttering during CX, giving a blank face during CX, or anything in between.)
As a competitor, you must ask questions. It helps the flow of the debate and really allows the judges to see the cross-examination aspect of Congress. When no one asks questions, it's extremely boring and really doesn't allow the judges to see if the competitor knows their stuff.
For PF/Policy/Parli
PLEASE add me to the chain @ttsudama@gmail.com (if rules allow)
- Please don't be late.
- Speak coherently and make sense.
- While I have experience in debate, I want you to speak slowly and calmly. Yelling doesn't make you right. If the volume does become too loud I will mark that off speaker points. If you are speaking too fast and become incoherent I will say "clear" one time as a reminder that you are either going too fast or because you are incoherent. After that, there are no more warnings and you have a higher chance of losing the debate because most likely I will have stopped flowing.
- I prefer case debate. I ask that there is no theory or kritiks. IF there is one ran, it must be well said// easy to understand. Run at your own risk.
-Think of me as a parent judge who flows. Please do not get too technical.
- I default to the voting framework. For example, if you say your Weighing Mechanism is Net benefits, I will choose whichever side provides the most amount of net benefits. Make sure to signpost, organization is key, and bouncing everywhere on the flow gets really confusing and leads to a dock on speaker points+ missed arguments on my flow.
IF you have any questions, email @ttsudama@gmail.com. Ask anything there is no such thing as a dumb question. Just ask honestly. Email is free.
I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:
-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon
-Make sure to cite your evidence
-Please be respectful of your opponents
-Make sure to time yourself
-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback
All the best!
Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.
Background:
4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School
2 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley
2 years Coaching at Berkeley High School
Judging:
I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.
TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)
2. Have good arguments
3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)
4. Attack your opponent's arguments
5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)
While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.
Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.
Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.
If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.
Miscellaneous Jargon:
If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.
Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.
Reminder:
You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)
I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.
Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:
1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).
2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.
Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.
I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.
I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.
Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).
Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.
Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.
Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.
Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.
Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.
I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.
Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )
If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.
In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).
It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.
I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.
+ speaks for Lebron.
Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.
I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!
Overview
-
Call me “judge” in-round, thanks
-
Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.
-
Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.
- Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).
Traditional LD
I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.
-
Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.
-
There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.
-
An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.
-
Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.
Circuit LD
-
Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.
-
I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.
-
Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon
Other Events
Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.
Have fun and good luck!
For all events:
- Absolutely no spreading.
- Treat your opponent with respect.
- Have fun!
La Costa Canyon HS 2019-Present
DEBATE:
"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"
- tech>truth
- Speech times are set, one team/person wins
Add me to the email chain, I’ll follow the doc when I’m lost and to look at stuff post-round. Email: cyberninjabear@outlook.com
- If I’m lost, I’ll look lost and please re-orient me.
- For extensions, warrant them and be specific of what I’m supposed to extend.
- IMPACT CALC PLEASE. MAKE ROUNDS (and my life) EASY.
- SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY/PRE-WRITTEN BLOCKS, UNLESS IT'S IN THE DOC. These are often the things that win rounds, so if I don’t catch them your chances of winning decrease.
- 2 years of HS experience in circuit & trad LD and a very small amount of trad policy. I don’t follow the topics or know the meta and stuff outside of LD, so please explain your stuff.
- Run anything you want, just make sure you have the justification.
-
Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.
GENERAL STUFF
- Debate Experience: Debated 2 years in high school. Freshman year did mostly trad LD, Sophomore year mostly circuit LD with like a single policy tournament.
- Topic Familiarity: If it's LD, assume I know the topic fairly well, more so if you're reading this in Jan-Feb. If it's not LD, assume I know nothing whatsoever.
- Delivery/Speed: I can comprehend speed, but don’t go full speed from the start, edge yourself in. If you spread and I have to yell “clear” or "slow" more than 3 times, I’m going to look confused and lost trying to flow. Also, I’ve realized that changing volume helps me flow better and grasp what you’re saying. Also also, don't spread things not on a speech doc. Fast analytics are fine, but if I'm looking lost or not flowing you should probably slow down.
- Cheap Shots/Blippy Arguments: If there’s a voter attached to it, it’s a voter. It’s up to the other team to say why they don’t count. If this is your type of strategy, be reasonable. Your arguments have to make sense and must be warranted.
- Kritik FW: Whoever debates better under the interpretation wins.
- K V K debates: Can't say I'm that comfortable with this, it'll be hard to convince me why aff perming isn't a good idea, especially if alts are similar.
- Views on T: Honestly, that’s what your job as debaters are. My only default is competiting interps. The only exception is that I probably have a lower threshold on disclosure.
- CP Threshold: Honestly, I don’t have that great of a knowledge on CP theory past condo bad, but if you want to run theory, keep it organized and I’ll be a-ok and I’ll follow.
- Dropped Arguments: Dropped args are "true," but the implications of it can still be contested and should be.
- How I evaluate rounds: I will evaluate rounds by first determining framing , i.e. standard, value criterion (For my LD folks), role of the ballot, etc. Second to that, I think of debate like a basketball game. Offense gives you points, defense doesn’t give you points but prevents the other team from getting points. Overviews are just you dribbling the ball, extensions with warrants and turns are offense, defense is just case answers and generic answers to case/off-case positions.
- I'm a pretty emotive person when judging - if I look skeptical it probably means I don't buy what you're saying (not that it matters if it goes unaddressed), if I'm smiling I'm probably enjoying the argument, etc. If I look disinterested that just means that I'm probably tired from judging 2+ rounds back to back with little to no breaks, not that I'm disinterested in what you're saying.
PROCEDURAL STUFF
- Disclosure: Disclosure is good, do it. I have a lower threshold on disclosure than other T shells.
- Prep/Cheating: Compiling speech docs are prep, sending emails/flashing is not prep. CX is not prep, asking questions during prep is ok. Don’t steal prep and don’t clip cards.
- CX: I will flow CX to a certain extent. If you want me to make note of what happens in CX, let me know so I’ll have it for sure. CX to me is an important part of debate, so you cannot use CX as prep. Tag-Team CX is ok.
- Timing: I’ll time speeches, but time your own prep. Hold each other accountable.
- Prompting/Speaking: Having your partner speak or prompt is ok. However, if it happens too often, your speaks will be affected.
FRAMEWORK
- Frame the framework by telling me what type of debate you want via your interpretation and tell me why that is net good/beneficial for debate.
- “I think of FW like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benefits to your vision of debate.” -Matthew Graca
- Abusive Interps, ROTBs, etc. How I’ll treat them is based on what you tell me to do with them.
- morality is not a framework, this is non-negotiable. If you run morality I WILL default to the other persons equivalent v/vc.
- please don't have framework debates if you both are more or less arguing for the same thing - if both of your impacts function under each others frameworks then it's unnecessary
KRITIK
Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving back the land to the natives? how are you committing revolutionary suicide? this stuff should be explained.
Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?
btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily laugh
THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks
(1) Cap: A staple in the policy diet, I can easily understand it as long as there is a good explanation of the alt
(2) Nietzsche: Hit it before, and promptly lost to it. Give me the impacts and explain it and I'll vote on it.
(3) Security: another staple. Understand the basics of it
(4) Race: refer to cap but replace "policy" with "circuit LD"
(5) Queer: Ran it for policy this year, understand it.
(6) French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews
(7) Language Ks: go ahead
(8) Ableism: yeah sure go for it
TOPICALITY/THEORY:
- I prefer theory be in this form for organizational purposes.
- Interp: The rule
- Violation: How they broke the interp
- Standards: Why that’s bad
- Voters: Why those standards matter
- My defaults are competing interps and drop the argument.
- RVI’s: Topicality is not an RVI. But I mean if its in the speech, you should answer it, but I’m a hard press for RVI’s.
- I’m not fond of frivolous theory.
- For theory, examples of in-round abuse are better and more convincing than potential abuse.
- Sounds dumb, but attach a voter to your argument. If you don’t tell me what to do, then I don’t know what to do with it, so your opponent in the next speech can tell me to disregard it.
- In my opinion, Topicality is a big time-suck because so many people drop it. If you read topicality, then at least try to go for it, if you do, I’ll reward you with some speaks.
THOUGHTS ON LARP/POLICY ARGS
- Counterplans
- Go for it. They must have a net benefit though. If you go for multiple CP’s in the 2NR, tell me how to evaluate them.
- Aff should probably perm and tell me how the perm functions.
- Judge kick is ok if you tell me
- Disads
- Anything is fine as long as it makes sense
- Also elections, ptx, or midterms is not persuasive. I'll still evaluate them you read it, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I prefer anything else.
- Impact Calc and weigh please.
- Case
- Answer case, and run impact defense.
SPEAKER POINTS
- If you want I'll disclose speaker points
- I start from a 28. It will go up or down based on strategy, mannerisms, spreading quality etc.
- I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style.
- <20, rude, mean, racism/homophobia/etc good
- 25-27.5, couple of things to fix
- 28-29, average range, decent speaker
- 29.5, impressive
- 30, solid, perfect speeches and strategy
- Shout out to Ethan Tan https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=ethan&search_last=tan who I more or less stole this paradigm from, as well as Matthew Graca for a couple of extra bits https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=graca
SPEECH:
"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"
1. Speech is subjective, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. I have enough experience both first-hand and through friends to know that you can go from 1st in your first round to 7th in your next.
2. Give me a good theme and I'll give you a good ranking
General:
- Experience - Did speech for a year in total, a DI for the first half and extemp for the second half, maybe one day I'll be able to put duo here as well.
- Speech to me regardless of the event is like any English essay you've ever had to write for school - it needs to have a message. What that message is depends on the subject matter of the essay, and the same applies for speeches.
- Building off the above idea - my evaluation and eventual ranking of your speech will depend on how well you convey your "thesis statement" on four points - uniqueness, conciseness, complexity, and spin.
- Basically, if you can make me hear something new, make me be able to keep track of what you're saying, make me think about what you're saying, and make me consider a new perspective on what you're saying, then you'll probably get a high rank.
- Time signals will be given if asked for, I won't offer them because truth be told 9/10 it will just turn awkward for me, for you, and for everyone watching the exchange, and nobody wants that.
I would say more but due to my limited experience with speech I can't.
I have been involved in debate (primarily parli) as a competitor, mentor, judge, and program lead for about 7 years. My pet peeves are speakers using "like" every three words, spinning or fabricating evidence*, trying to win the debate through any means aside from debating the case itself, and presenting a speech that would confuse rather than convince the public.
*However, I judge tabula rasa, so if someone says the wavelengths of light reflected off air particles make the sky appear purple, I'm just going to assume they just have an interesting retina unless the other team refutes their statement.
For MSPDP: Please use sign-posting, an on-time roadmap, max 15 seconds grace time, and 1-2 POIs (per person). NO heckling (except when asking the speaker to slow down) or CPs, and if you are rude to anyone in the debate, at the very least I will take off 2 speaker points. Feel free to use your own timer/phone timer on airplane mode. If a speaker does not connect their impact to the weighing mech, I will assume the point is about preponderance of evidence. If Team B drops Team A's contention and Team A does not explain why that dropped point was important, I won't flow the contention any further. I'll allow new evidence in Prop 3 specifically for responding to new refutes in the Opp block.
For MSLD: Please present evidence from across the globe (unless the resolution specifies a nation), feel free to use your own timer/phone timer on airplane mode, and don't restate your case during cross ex. If Neg drops Aff's contention and Aff does not explain why that dropped point was important, I won't flow the contention any further. I'll allow new evidence in the rebuttal only for responding to new refutes. If you're rude to anyone in the debate, at best you'll get 24 speaker points.
“There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion. “ - Sir W. Churchill
Preferences:
-Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
-Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
Sophmore at Evergreen Valley High School
He/Him
2 years of PF
Please tell me why I should prefer your evidence/analytics over your opponents instead of just bringing up a card that says the opposite.
- Speak at whatever pace you want to.
- pls weigh, warrant, signpost
- don't steal prep
IMPORTANT
Don't be rude in cross, (interrupt, curse, yell, etc.)
If you have any questions contact me: rxie28@gmail.com
good luck!
For CHSSA Middle School State Championship –
Hello, my name is Emily and right now I'm a senior in high school. I've debated LD for 4 years and have a decent amount of experience in progressive debate. That being said, I don't know a ton about this topic so pretend that I'm not very experienced. I will start off by saying (because I used to be a really nervous debater), don't stress out too much and try your best to enjoy the debate and it will make it easier to stay focused. Panic is bad for focus.
I'll be honest, I don't really know what level this tournament is at so I'll just say this in case people need it:
I will try my best to act as a tabla rasa and I will be flowing all of the debate, including cross-x. Theory and K's are ok but also tentative; must be really well-substantiated and explained. If it becomes overly jargony or if it's obvious that you're trying to get an edge based on jargon, I won't flow it.
In more lay terms, I will be as partial as possible, and really nail home all of your arguments. If your opponent drops an argument, if you don't bring it up and explain why it's important that they dropped the argument, then it doesn't matter to me. Explain your impacts! Why should I care at all? If I can still ask "So What" after you finish your last speech then you need to build it out a little bit more.
This should be obvious but any discrimination or potentially triggering language is a no-go, I will drop the debater. Be coherent, please. In terms of aggressiveness, go off honestly, as long as you're not being outright mean.
Be respectful, everyone is human and (probably) trying their best.
That's all, but let me know if you have any questions pre-round :)
Also, if you have any questions you can email me at emilyxu2021@gmail.com (as I'm still a minor this should fall within tournament policy)
Hello, my name is Jing.
I am parent judge, and please speak slowly and clearly. Please try your best and avoid technical jargon. Please weigh your impacts, and explain your voters in simplest terms.
Thank you.
I am a lay judge, being a public forum judge for about 1.5 years. So please speak slowly and clearly (<200 wpm). If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I will look for a clear explanation of the arguments. If you signpost clearly during your speech, that will be great. Please run less run any progressive arguments but try to focus on debating the topic. Please use little debate jargon (such as de-link and terminal defense, etc.) but use simple terms. And most of all have fun!
I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon
Hi, I'm Dr. Yim and a volunteer judge. I currently work at a tech company (in the bay area) as a computer scientist and engineering manager. I've judged LD a couple of times in the past (where at least in one tournament all the way up to the last round).
Here's how I decide the winner.
- High importance: Whether you win in the value paradigm & framework arguments (esp how your contention points support your value).
- Medium importance: Whether you defend (and successfully attack) each contention point (ideas, supporting evidence, logical reasoning, and spontaneous response)
- Low but still important: Other factors (such as time management, conscious speaking, etiquette, etc.)
Basically I give a score for each contention point. That is then normalized to handle cases where a debater has 2 contention points vs. 3 contention points. For example, if you win the contention point battles (with a small margin) but lose in the value and criterion arguments (again with a small margin), you still win the debate as long as you've the higher score in the last scoring point than the debating partner. Similarly, if your and partner's contention point scores are on par, one who win the value argument will be the winner unless otherwise nothing is notable in the last scoring point. I hope that explains how I decide the winner and help you plan/prepare/debate accordingly.
Finally, please set a timer for yourself and your opponent. For example, say "my opponent ready? (yes) my time starts now".
Good luck and hope you enjoy the debates today!
I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.
Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.
Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
First of first: Please speak clearly and loudly no matter how tired you are. Otherwise you may lose your game. I know it may be too ridiculous to believe. However, when there are threes judges in a debate, you may find I am the only judge who are trying his best to remember and note every sentence of your speech. Please, do yourself a favor, speak clearly and loudly to let the other two judges be aware of what you are talking about. I wrote this paragraph because I care about the fairness. (To editor, I hope you can understand my kindness and please do not delete my post, Thanks!)
Hi there, my name is Feng Zhang. Although I have limited judging experiences, I am a good learner for debating and judging. Since I got A grade for all STEM lectures from elementary school to graduate school, from China to North America, in Chinese and English, I like logical analysis and data analysis from history facts and economical facts. I am a flow judge and will take notes.
Overall note:
I think that the first crossfire part is the most important part in a debate. Each team will find the opponents’ weakness and ask the sharp questions to challenge each other. The intensive debate always starts from sharp questions. Please do not drop sharp questions and try your best to fight back from there.
Performance:
Debate is both a game and the real world. Bring real word issues to the forefront within debate rounds is extremely important. I hope it can creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. Hence, I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door.
Speak Points:
26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.
29-30=excellent
27-28.9=average
26-26.9=below average
Congressional Debate:
General Ideas to Keep in Mind: I strongly prefer clear speakers that are easy to understand and follow. I would also like a respectful debate, so during the round and cross examination especially, please limit cutting off other competitors. The side you stand on does not matter to me as long as you are a good speaker with proper argumentation and persuasion skills.
Speeches: I prefer clear speakers who I can understand well - if I have any trouble understanding you, you will not be getting a high score. Please include vocal variety and some hand gestures, or else the speech seems very bland. I also would like to see clear argumentation that is backed up with solid evidence. And finally, unless you are the sponsorship or authorship speaker, I expect some clash in your speech, though canned rebuttal will lose you points.
I recognize crystallization speeches and that they are harder to present, so if you do it well, I will give you a higher score. However, if you do it poorly, do not expect me to rank you very high.
Cross Examination: During direct cross examination, I would like both competitors respecting each other and allowing the other to speak. Please do not continuously cut off other competitors as that makes it harder to follow and understand - I will give you a lower score for that.
And during indirect cross examination, please keep your questions short but meaningful, with solid answers - leading questions, preface questions and other fallacies should not be present in the round and will you get a lower score.
Presiding Officers: I expect that Presiding Officers can move the round along quickly and smoothly - if as a judge I can clearly see otherwise, I will not give Presiding Officers a high score. However, if the Presiding Officer is particularly good, expect a top 5, or at the very least, top 8 score.
I am a lay parent judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.
I will judge based upon:
1) solid logic and reasoning.
2) strong advocacy of your position.
3) utilization of evidence.
4) clear communication.
I am a parent judge. Please speak at regular speed. If you speak too fast, you risk losing me. I value logic in an argument. I have a strong background in statistics, so please make an effort to fully understand the evidence you present, especially those with numbers. Statistically a good posture and good manners correlate with higher speaker points that I give.
Follow the rules! I have no specific preferences, but I do follow rulesets. For each category, I make decisions based on the guidelines and should know roughly what the best version of that event category is. If your event requires you to behave a certain way(Ie. Blocking, Card cutting vs no card cutting, etc), I will expect you to do so.
Speech: Get into it. Give me flavor and character. Give me complexity!
In select debates with more flexibility, I would say I'm somewhere farther from lay and leaning towards tech. I never mind a devil's advocate approach or a silly strategy, but caution that you choose to do so wisely.
What am I looking for?
1/ Signposting: Using transitions and naming the contention is general good practice
2/ Strong links: your argument, in speech or debate, should be logical and trackable.
3/ Fun. I might not smile, but I am looking at your dedication and your happiness. We are here to learn and I will do my best to give you adequate feedback.