La Salle Forum Invitational
2021 — Wyndmoor, PA/US
PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi,
I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:
- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.
- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.
With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!
Hello! If you are checking paradigms you're off to a great start. I am a college student studying Business Information Systems, and I competed in Public Forum for 3 years.
Speed: Speaking fast is fine, it is a skill that lets you put more into your speeches, but only when you can be understood! If I can not understand you it is highly unlikely I will be able to vote for you. OR. If your opponents can not understand you and speed hinders the round you will be asked to slow down.
Evidence: All evidence stated in the round both directly and implicitly from your side of the flow should be available to read as a cut card if requested. Debating evidence is fine, in fact, it's encouraged and can be highly strategic to weigh why I should value your evidence over your opponents.
Speeches: For Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus when applicable, please sign-post! This means you first state which warrant/card/claim you are addressing before refuting it. This helps everyone flow easier. For Rebuttal, frontlining is fine, but not required. For me to consider your impacts and weighing they need to be stated in both Summary and Final Focus.
Crossfire: Be respectful and be mindful of time. Use First Crossfire to clarify your opponent's contentions if you need to.
Weighing: There is more to weighing than looking at which number is bigger. Units matter, life-years does not mean lives. If you want me to vote on a different weighing than your opponent is going for, you need to tell me why I should value your weighing more.
Above all else: Have fun! If you're committing hours and days preparing and debating, you better be having fun.
For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com
I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.
What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?
I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.
Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017, I started in public forum, but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!
I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com
if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a.docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).
Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.
Also, if you see me moving my face oddly it is almost certainly a tic not a reaction!
he/him
----
PF Paradigm (updated for summer 24):
Judging paradigm for PF.
I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name.
email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.
I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be
Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.
I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!
A couple things I've stolen from the wonderful Les Phillips:
"If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections."
"Fear the Kvaal!"
---
pref shortcuts:
Phil / High Theory 1
K 1/2
LARP/policy/T 1/2
Tricks/Theory strike
-----
--
LD: updated for PFI 24.
philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in
Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.
Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.
I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.
Put me on the email chain.
Happy to answer questions !
---
Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC
Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate
Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.
------
Policy Paradigm
I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.
The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.
Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.
I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
---
---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24
Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.
I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.
Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.
---
I am a licensed attorney and parent of a debater. I ask debaters to present the most professional and polished version of themselves. Remember to initially identify who you are, what side you are on, and what relief you seek from the judge. If time runs out at any time during the debate, please ask for a moment to finish your thought/sentence (be very VERY BRIEF as you are already out of time) and also state what you are asking of the judge. Never let yourself be cut off and just let that go. Make sure every chance you have to present your case is used to the very fullest and that includes finishing your thoughts and asking for what you are there to ask for--that is getting the judge to rule in your favor.
I see a debate as my court room and you as current and future community leaders and I expect you to behave as such. To that end, please treat debate communication as though it were a persuasive, calm, thoughtful and rational conversation with a judge. Kindly keep your tone and pace conversational. If I cannot understand you because you are talking too quickly, too urgently or too loudly, I will not be able to follow along with your arguments and that could lead to a reduction in points for you. Also, please do not use any swear words whatsoever. Any foul language, no matter how insignificant you believe it to be, could count against you. For example, words like, "crap" will be considered foul. If you are not sure if a word falls into this category, I suggest you do not use it. Please do not use slang, either. Some examples of slang are: "My bad," or "You guys." Please use formal phrasing and proper English whenever possible. This is a formal setting which requires the utmost respect in your word choices, much like a court room. Kindly treat it as such.
In addition to the above, I expect clear, well organized and well supported arguments to be made with solid, verifiable, significant, and current sources as support. Good luck!
Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.
In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.
In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.
For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.
Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.
Strath Haven HS '17, not debating in college
Add me to the email chain: elimanaker@gmail.com
Time your own prep, but I'll try to track it, so don't cheat
Limited amounts of judging recently, so let me get accustomed to your voice before you go 100%
I'll listen to anything, but I'm probably predisposed towards plans in the direction of the topic
I'm not a great K judge; if I'm voting on a K after the 2NR, you might get a bizarre decision
Slow on topicality (blocks) otherwise I will miss your important argument
Please don't spread all your analytics really fast and in a block; I won't catch them and my RFD will reflect that
I'm open to any interpretation of condo as long as you can defend it
The country is Saudi Arabia; Saudi is an adjective
It's hard to convince me that capitalizing "federal government" affects my ballot
I often give lots of comments and a long RFD, so don't hesitate to say you need to go or interrupt for specific questions
If I'm judging you in LD, I'm skeptical of frivolous theory and reluctant to vote on RVIs
Feel free to ask me if you want anything more specific
Hi! I am a first time judge and a parent of a first time debater.
I will evaluate the arguments the best I can based on what I understand in the round. Minimize vague references, define abbreviations and terminology unique to the topic. Present information in a clear, well organized format. Talking too fast or mumbling words will hurt your chances.
Be kind, professional and have fun!
In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.
I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.
Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.
Hi, I'm Lisel (she/her) and I currently attend UPenn. I debated PF in high school throughout my sophomore-senior years for Masterman High School so I'm like moderately experienced I guess. If you have any questions about my paradigm or want to contact me: lisel.ndr@gmail.com
As some general things: I'll flow and catch dropped/collapsed contentions but it works to your advantage if you make collapsing clear in one of your speeches. You should also probably frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary. If you say anything discriminatory, I'll tank points (and intervene depending on the severity but this is in rare cases). Out of respect to all debaters involved, please include warnings before the debate begins if sensitive content will be included in round. I'll likely ask your preference for timing/prep but I really don't mind. Speed doesn't matter, just be clear, weigh, make the debate fun and interesting. Please weigh. I probably won't flow your crossfires so please incorporate anything important that was brought up in crossfires in speeches.
For Fun:If you make me laugh, I'll give you an extra point. I enjoy disclosing verbally so if it is allowed at the competition and if we have time, remind me and I'll disclose. Nicki Minaj references in your constructive are welcome and invited.
What I'm looking for follows basically the guidelines set forth in the sepcific event that you are in. Of specific importance outside these guidelines are the following:
- clearly enunciating your speech. Take your time and effectively use your voice
- use of physical characterizations and body language to help tell the story
- creative use of your voice during charazterizations
- using pacing to a purpose
- at the close bring the entire speech together in a delightful manner
I am a former PF debater and an architecture student, so interpreted as you will. For the current tournament, you can consider me as a lay judge. Technicality is fine. Ask me if you have questions about anything.
[-] Etiquettes:
- You may time yourself, but you must be honest about your time. I will keep official time regardless.
- I permit off-time roadmaps but don't ramble.
[-] Structure:
- I am not a tabula rosa.
- Please be clear on the magnitude, scope, timeframe, and probability.
- When you frame your case or the round, you must prove that your side ultimately solves for that framework. Also, it must be logical.
[-] Philosophy:
- Utilitarianism always ignores a minority group.
- Education is not the great equalizer unless it is proven equitable, accessible, and equal.
[-] RFD:
- I do not disclose because it may discourage teams mid-tournament. However, I do disclose if required by the tournament.