Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I competed in Public Forum debate for a number of years at Loyola High School. Personally, I view debate as a game in which I look at arguments in an offensive/defensive structure. It is up to the debaters to define the rules of the game through framework, observations, etc. However, I also focus highly on real-world and logical impacts for arguments and certainly weigh the policy implications of any contention brought up in round.

Regarding speaker points, I focus on the overall flow of a speech, eye contact, posture, etc. I am fine with speed so long as I can clearly understand what is being said.

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

Hello! Some background on me: My name is Kino Farr, and I am a UC Berkeley Rhetoric graduate.. I did speech & debate for 6 years before transferring to university and have been judging since I was in high school, so I'm an experienced judge, don't worry.

Onto my paradigm:

Keep the debate theory out of this - I know how it works, but I focus on points and flow.

Enjoy yourself - I want to see that you're having a good time, otherwise, it's no fun for anybody. I want everybody to have a good time, so just take a deep breath and relax your shoulders before you speak. It'll be okay and you'll do great.

I think that's it? Cool

oh wait one more thing… NO SPREADING! I want you to PRESENT to me, NOT READ.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I'm a lay judge so I mostly look for clear delivery. This should be obvious, but please make sure to respect your fellow competitors and try your best to not talk over others aggressively.

Congress:

My paradigm for speakers is as follows:

I need to see the following:

1. Clear-cut analysis of a situation. Unique analysis, not just spewing data.
2. At least 2 sources throughout a speech and at least 2 points made. Three points are unnecessary and frequently damage speaking quality.
3. Signposting.
4. Clash.

I would like to see the following:

1. Well-toned speaking and fundamentals.
2. Entertaining hooks and humor.
3. Pop culture references are always enjoyable.

In questioning, I need to see the following:

1. Straightforward, short questions which analyze the argument of a speech.
2. Proof that you have caused the speaker to falter.

My paradigm for Presiding Officers is as follows:

1. Utilize precedence and recency effectively.
2. Be entirely fair as far as it concerns your abilities.
3. Control your chamber and give me the least amount of work possible. This chamber belongs to you.

I do not tolerate discrimination against any people group based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. Any actions of this variety will result in an immediate end-of-flow.

Lincoln-Douglas:

On aff:

1. A clear-cut constructive case that builds a policy program. Creating a theory shell is positive but if it is standalone it will hurt the value of your constructive.
2. Effective questioning that builds your case.
3. Well-evidenced, well understood meanings of the background of ideas and effective analysis of the situation.
4. An achievable V/C debate.

On neg:

1. Effective rebuttals and strong constructives.
2. I am highly partial to T-shell arguments.
3. Damage the aff case in questioning.

General don'ts:

1. I value a more traditional LD style. Be mindful of this when presenting Ks.
2. DO NOT SPREAD. If I fail to understand you I will say "clear," and if the speed is not reduced to an understandable rate, I will drop my pen and stop flowing.
3. Morality as a value is ineffective unless explained well. If this is utilized, be prepared to defend it. Morality is a large intangible with almost no defined meaning. If VC debate is not good, there is little else to do.
4. Never fail to quantify your impacts. Impacts without quantification are weak.

Note: I do not flow questioning, but I do pay attention.

Extemporaneous Speaking

Provide a solid understanding of the Unified Analysis Format, that is to say,

Intro, Background, Question, Answer, Justification, Three Points, Conclusion, Tie in.

I would like to see At Minimum 3 pieces of evidence in your speech from valid sources (i.e. not Wikipedia, not the Daily Mail, no Buzzfeed, etc.)

The ideal amount of evidence for an extemp speech is 7. However, if evidence takes away from your speech, it will hurt your ranking.

To succeed in extemp, show me that you understand your topic, show good speaking fundamentals, and explain why you/I should care. If you are competing in International Extemp, spend a good amount of time in the background portion of your speech. I am a Political Science student studying International Relations, so I have a good fundamental knowledge of global politics, but it is always helpful to provide additional background when discussing IR related issues.

I am a stock issues judge also I am fine with counter plans. I don't mind spreading of cards just no spreading of the tags.

Sorry for being really extra about Congress. I just want to make it clear what I think of each speech

Congress

I judge a lot of Congress. Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently

• 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round

• Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized

• Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written

• 1st Neg

• Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.

• 2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)

• Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6

• Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers

• Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)

• Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.

General Congress Speaking Tips

• Remember to always use decorum and professionalism

• Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)

• Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you

Role of Cross Examination

• I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful

• Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties

Evaluating the PO

• If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what

• Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum

• Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure

• Maintains control of the chamber

• Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency

• One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on

One final note about Equity

• It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.

• Tabroom will not let me eliminate this stray bullet

LD/PF Paradigm

1. Speed kills. Spread at your own risk.

1. In LD, you need to win the framework to win the debate

1. Case needs to tell a cohesive story. You should not include arguments that don’t function under your framework for the sake of just having extra offense

1. You have to weigh the debate

1. Respect your opponent. Ideally you should be stone faced when your opponent is speaking and never snicker or make any comment of any kind. I’ll drop you

1. Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?

2. There is no 7, tabroom will not let me backspace

Speaker Points

• If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means you missed something somewhere. I’ll try to put it on the ballot. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify

Hello!

I did Congressional debate all four years of high school (’22 TOC quarterfinals and IHSA State finals!) so here are some general things I look for when judging debates.

If you are giving a first affirmative or negative, lay out the case for the rest of your side. You don’t need to have super creative arguments, but explaining the main logic/ rationale of your side is going to make both your speech and the rest of the debate the most successful it can be. Preemptive refutation also helps.

If you are giving a 2nd or 3rd-cycle speech, creative arguments that do not repeat the contentions of other speakers are key. Just because you cite evidence from a different source doesn’t make it a different argument. Don’t rehash unless you are refuting and adding something to what’s been said already.

If you are giving a 4th cycle speech or later, refutation and weighing the opposing side’s arguments compared to yours should be your main goal. Crystallization speeches are something I didn’t really practice much until late in my debate career, so if you feel like you may not get a speech in try it out. It’s better than only speaking once in a session.

In general, incorporate more refutation in your speeches. Debate should involve your referencing previous arguments or debaters.

Finally, Congressional debate is a debate form that is predicated on respect. Call your fellow debaters “representatives” or “senators” and make sure to use the correct names and pronouns! Also, don’t talk over each other, it’s hard to listen to and it also just isn’t super respectful.

And here are some random bits and bobs I tried to keep in mind during my time as a debater. I always enjoy interesting contentions that attack the bill itself. I know a lot of debate topics come up repeatedly, so try to make your speech and your affirmation or negation about the bill itself. Why should the chamber specifically pass this VAT or this carbon tax? What makes this legislation successful or catastrophic? Citing the bill itself is also helpful because judges don't always have legislation in front of them! Also, defining terms during a debate can help clarify any confusion and streamline the general point your side is trying to make. Finally, there are other ways to write contentions other than the claim, single source of evidence, and warrant. You can use multiple sources and piece them together to create a more coherent argument. If you are refuting someone's speech, or there's an extra long quote, you can paraphrase evidence. It's not always the best idea, but there are certain times when paraphrasing is incredibly useful.

Good luck, and remember- debate is supposed to be fun :) Some rounds of debate aren't going to go your way, and if they don't, try to make the most of them.

hi yall! i coach congress for leland, but i also did pf and policy a fair bit during my time debating

TOC '22 Congress Quarterfinalist

Congress:

- dont feel pressured to do only late round speeches — I'll bump up good constructives/authorships so don't worry about not getting clash in as an early speaker

- PO's will generally be ranked pretty highly, depending on how many mistakes you make/how efficient you are

- i vote between a mix of argumentation and presentation — both are important for ranking well

- i like questions that try to point flaws in logic, try to keep new evidence for your own speeches (basically no leading questions)

- debatey terminology like "warrant" and "framework" are okay with me, but i know some judges don't like it so proceed with caution

- don't forget the congress roleplay! That also means that you can include arguments that come as a consequence of previous legislation — e.g. if theres a docket that includes VAT tax and UBI, and VAT tax was passed in an earlier round, then you can now use that to fund the UBI bill! don't forget the congressional rhetoric too

- please please please please figure and stick to splits at the beginning of the round — too many times in which people got screwed because the aff/neg cycle screws over later speakers. if you are forced/choose to flip, ill bump you up

General debate (excluding Congress):

- if rules allow, add me on the email chain: smmzhu@gmail.com

- feel free to run unique and strange arguments, as long as they are explained well and arent offensive

- progressive arguments (Ks, high theory) may be evaluated if i can understand them, but I have basically no experience in progressive arguments, so run at your own risk

- spread at your own risk (250+ wpm), and send a speech doc past 200+ wpm

- signpost pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

- anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. = automatic drop (duh), also make sure to include content warnings when necessary

- please don't be rude

- being funny will help ur speaks, debate can get dry without it

- ill disclose if tourney rules allow and both teams agree

PF:

- paraphrasing is okay, I will assume that your card tags are correct until someone contests them (if there is slight ambiguity then that's okay, but if there's wild misconstruing I may have to intervene)

- in cross, i'll be watching but not flowing so if theres anything flow worthy, bring it up in the subsequent speech

- please extend your links and warrants throughout the debate, i swear i will cry if you dont

- extend in rebuttal, and second rebuttal should have frontlines — anything you go for must be in summary and FF

- you can win off of a turn, but you would need to weigh those turns against the opponents contentions

- please do your own weighing, i dont wanna do weighing for you cuz im super lazy

- hopefully i dont have to read through cards at the end of the round, but i will do so if it RFD depends on it

- no third final focus, you know who you are

Policy:

- ive done a bit of lay policy, so i know about how the general debate format works

- anything circuit (kritiks, theory) must be explained spectacularly to a dodo like me, also run at your own risk since i know nothing about k lit

- framework (burden of proof, net benefits, etc.) will default to utilitarianism until someone provides a framework to follow

LD/Parli:

- im a bit newer to these debates, but i think most of the general debate concepts dont change, so just explain your jargon

gj for making it thus far into my paradigm, hope round runs smoothly

any questions? email me at smmzhu@gmail.com