BERKNER TFA
2021 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
NPF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMy paradigm is to judge on the speakers presences. They should speak in a clear and concise manner. I will be looking for the team to be convincing and engaging when they are speaking. The goal is to convince me why their side should win the debate.
Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.
I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.
Hi! I'm Allison and I competed in PF for two years and competed in Original Oratory for two years as well. I don't have much experience judging LD so please be sure to make your argument as if I am completely unaware of your topic.
General
- Tech>Truth
- If you plan on spreading send the doc and avoid going too fast as we are online
- Add me to the email chain (allisonnguyenn7@gmail.com)
- Slow down on taglines
- Signpost
- Clarity>speed
- Decide the round for me by weighing your impacts under the winning framework
Argument Prefs
- in LD, I'll be judging off of value/criterion/framework. I want to see a clear framework that's well explained and illustrates the connections of how your FW influences your argument.
Speaker Points
25: You were offensive/rude
26-27: Need to improve
27-28: Below average
28-28.5: Average
28.5-29: Above average
29-29.5: You should break here
29.5-30: You have a solid shot at winning the tournament
Hi guys! My name is Sophia Pirani and I've been a part of the Speech and Debate Team for the past four years- I competed in Varsity Public Forum for three years and Original Oratory for one. For debate rounds, I will flow the round and follow along with your arguments but it is important that you articulate and EXPLAIN your argument. I value if you make the round easy for me to judge and lay out your case so I can easily follow along and find a clear path to vote from.
Some things I believe you should do in a round:
- Even though I can follow along, I prefer you do not spread. Spreading makes it difficult to fully explain your arguments and evidence and leaves gaps in my understanding of the topic.
- Make sure you properly articulate and speak clearly and loudly so I can understand what you're saying. I will give you high speaks if you do so.
- No speaking over each other during round. This means in crossfire if a person is asking a question let them finish speaking before you respond. I do not tolerate any disrespect towards your opponents.
- Make sure you give me a CLEAR BALLOT to vote from. If you continue to reiterate your arguments in your speeches and emphasize the information you want me to remember, then I will vote for you.
- Provide me with a roadmap before every speech so I can flow properly.
- Make sure you WEIGH THROUGHOUT THE ROUND. When you weigh your arguments and explain to me why YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE, then I will vote for you. However, don't just say we outweigh on magnitude or probability and expect me to understand it. Explain why you do and compare it to the opponents argument to tell me why I should prefer your argument.
- Remember to have a good time in round! Please ask me any additional questions if you have any before the round starts and keep your time throughout the round. I will as well but if your opponent goes over time and I do not catch it, indicate it to me so I know when to stop flowing.
- I will provide comments in the comments section to give you feedback on what you can improve. I will also not disclose during round but I will release my results right after.
Thank you and good luck to you all!
Hello, I've been judging policy debate since the Fall of 2020 to the present (Spring of 2024). This is my second year serving as head debate coach, and I also have experience in LD and World Schools Debate.
Previously to being a High School AP World History teacher at the School of the Talented and Gifted at Townview in Dallas, I served as an instructor in both the English and the Latin American Latino Studies Departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I incorporated debate into my courses.
As such, my approach to judging could be described as a synthesis between a policy making judge and a tabula rasa judge. When deciding a round I try to put myself into the shoes of a national legislator who must vote for the best policy offered in the debate, focusing on the AFFs plan and the NEGs ability to clash on the feasibility implementing the AFF or the NEGs ability to present a more preferable counter plan. And I like to adopt the posture of a tabula rasa judge because it is unfair for judge's to vote based on their own knowledge of the issues and/or their own politics.
So, I leave it to the debaters to demonstrate gaps in the opponent's plans, contradictions of values, or to extend each others timelines, minimize each others magnitudes, break link chains, impact calculus etc. As such, your rebuttals are key for giving me a path to voting for your plan, so be sure to flow the debate, and give your most strategic clashes for the most important grounds.
And, for me anyway, whatever you say under your timed speech always already enters the record as grounds for the debate, I do not strike out previously made claims if you happen to lose on those grounds later on in the match.
Also, I really appreciate it when students argue in good faith about the resolution as opposed to when students choose to argue about the rules of policy debate instead. I mean, in a way, it makes sense. Students should not introduce new evidence in rebuttals and if something like that occurs, then I am flexible to hearing your claims. But if the entire hour-and-a-half round is about the technicalities of CX policy debate then I feel like we are wasting our time / avoiding the actual topic.
Final note: debaters must use evidence ethically, quoting with integrity to the source. If your evidence gets called into question and it is clear that the evidence says the opposite of what you claim, or does not exist, then this may impact the way that particular argument is evaluated. Please CC me into the round's email chain entitled" Tournament name, Round #, school-1 vs school-2" at: nesandoval@dallasisd.org