TL;DR

signpost, warrant, weigh, and HAVE FUN!!!

My rant on debate: You won't remember the wins and losses, but you'll miss debate when you graduate. Enjoy the process. Find joy in those you debate with. Make the debate space a better place.

Facts about me:

-I run training for the Harvard College Debating Union

-I concentrate (Harvard's word for major) in government, history, and philosophy. Be careful when making untrue arguments about these topics. I will know these arguments are untrue ...

-7 years of debate experience at Dalton/Harvard

-experience in HS Parli(the GOAT format), APDA, MSPDP, PF, World Schools (barely), and BP (barely).

-former Executive Director of the New York Parliamentary Debate League

-I love history, anthropology, and critical theory. Making a reference to Benedict Anderson, Ian Haney Lopez, Loïc Wacquant, Frantz Fanon, or Franz Boas make me very happy. If you don't know them, look them up (AFTER THE ROUND), and I think you might learn a thing or two

-I REALLY need some help with economics

If I am judging you in PF/any activity that requires evidence

-As my debate mentor says, "“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1"

-I don't care about evidence. You can find someone online that says the earth is flat ... Rely on logic. With that being said, I'm tech>truth and won't intervene against something that is illogical so please respond.

-Please read the rest of my paradigm. Please weigh. Please signpost. Please warrant. Please collapse.

Things I like:

1. Weighing. I put weighing first for a reason. It is not something that should be reserved for the grace period of the rebuttal speeches where you just say the word scope and hope that I am going to figure that out. Weighing is something that you should devote a lot of time to throughout the entire debate. People need to stop calling the last speech of the round the weighing speech because it dissuades member speakers from weighing. If you are a member speaker, I would love to hear some weighing. If you are a rebuttal speaker, I would love to hear weighing for >50% of your last speech. I also love preemptive weighing in PMC or weighing in LOC. In any round where both teams have offense left, I will write my ballot based on which team has the better weighing. In other words, unless you refute every single argument that your opponent has, the debate will come down to weighing. Beyond just providing weighing of your own, I appreciate when teams interact with the other team’s weighing. A weighing mechanism is just like any other argument and therefore you can engage with it. This takes the form of refuting that weighing mechanism or meta-weighing(explaining why your weighing mechanism is more important). If both teams weigh, but neither team provides meta-weighing or refutation to the other team’s weighing, it is impossible for me to decide the round without intervening in some way. The overview here is that the more weighing that you do, the less I have to intervene as a judge. I want to intervene as little as possible so PLEASE WEIGH.

2. Signposting. Although I appreciate a roadmap at the start of your speech, it is much more important to me that you tell me where you are on the flow. If I do not get something on my flow, I am not going to vote on it. I should always know what contention you are refuting, what contention you are defending, etc. However, signposting even further than that is better. For example, if you are refuting the impact of a contention, specifically say that you are refuting the impact of the contention. Small note on this, I really appreciate it when member speakers number their responses instead of just saying “moreover” or something to that effect. I award speaks almost exclusively on organization, so please be organized.

3. Warranting. When in doubt, you should over warrant. Saying something is true in the real world is not a warrant. Unless it is incredibly common knowledge, explain WHY it is true in the real world. A perfect example of this is in a debate about nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, I made an argument about how large pharmaceutical companies donate unsafe drugs to the developing world. Although I happened to have background knowledge on this, I still explained on an incentive level why companies would want to do this (benefit to PR without harm to profits). Debaters love to assert that something will happen without providing any reasoning for why this is the case.

4. Collapsing. I will legitimately stop flowing if you try to bring up more than 4 pieces of offense in the rebuttal speeches. You should generally have 1-3 arguments that you collapse on, and weigh those arguments very well. Remember that I am only going to be casting my ballot on one argument and you do not get brownie points for having 4 arguments left standing if none of them are implicated or weighed. Opp teams should be collapsing in MO, because otherwise the MO wastes a quarter of their speech frontlining (defending) arguments that their partner are not going to weigh. Gov can start collapsing in MG, but does not need to (I often don't when I MG), but should definitely collapse in PMR.

5. Offense in the member speeches. Don't be like Jack the ripper, be like Zach the flipper (shoutout Ryan Lafferty). Turning arguments kinda just OP if you can do it. It makes your rebuttal speaker’s job easier and the opposing rebuttal speaker’s job far more difficult. However, reading a turn does not matter if you are scared to collapse on it and weigh it. I get very sad when a team reads a brilliant turn and then does not collapse on it. Turns can you be your best argument. Don't be scared of them!

6. Coverage and good flowing. Debate is as much about listening as it is about speaking. In order to respond to everything that your opponent says, you must listen and take note of everything that your opponent says. I value coverage very highly and if you notice that your opponents drop something you should definitely point it out. With that being said, do not think you can get away with the PMR BS that your opponent dropped 30 things that they didn't. I can sniff out a lie about a dropped argument from a mile away (more miles if it is an online tournament)

7. Humor. Debate is meant to be fun. I want to laugh. At the end of the day I am a human being and I enjoy judging a lot more when people are able to successfully incorporate humor into their speeches. However, I am not going to decide the round on who is funnier so please do not worry about that.

8. When debaters mix quality and quantity. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive.I love dense cases. Having 7 mechanisms with 2 warrants each is fantastic if all of the warrants are good. I would much rather you have that than repeat your one strong argument for 7 minutes providing 70,000 explains. If I did have to choose 1, I would choose quality, but combining both is the best option.

9. Running interesting argumentation. One of my favorite rounds that I have ever judged is when one team ran a Buddhism contention on a round about romance (shoutout Adrian Turkedjiev). Not only will it make me happy, it is probably strategic because your opponents will not expect it to come. This also includes framework. I have had a lot of sucsess with non-util framing (structural violence, animals > humans, deont, etc.). I encourage you to have fun with these frameworks.

10. Productive intros: they are a lot more interesting than just saying “hello my name is X and I am debating X side of the resolution: X.” We are all humans and getting the listener engaged with something somewhat interesting is usually a good start!

11. Teamwork. Never blame your partner. You win and lose together. If you don't like that, go do LD or mav every tournament, but this is a TEAM EVENT. I will drop your speaks if you scream at your partner and will raise your speaks if you are supportive. After the round, PLEASE BE SUPPORTIVE OF EACHOTHER. In terms of in-round stuff, you need to be on the same page. Coordinate your collapse. Prioritize the same arguments. I cannot stand when I know which arguments each debater wrote because that is what they spend all of their time on. You are a team!!!!

Things I don’t like:

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY PARADIGM: Being discriminatory/offensive(racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, transphobic, Islamophobic, ableist, classist, etc.) in ANY WAY. If you are offensive I will ignore the flow completely and give you the loss and <23 speaker scores. If the round is not safe and you want me to know, please reach out to me and I will be an ally to you. Your safety in the round is infinitely more important to me than a high school debate ballot.

2. People taking a lot of time in between speeches thinking they are slick when they are stalling by saying they are setting up their timer. You're not a slick as you think.

3. Being repetitive. One of the most important things in debate is word economy. Always try to think how you can say whatever you are trying to say in less words or in a less repetitive way. However, this also goes across a specific team. MG should not just repeat the case that was introduced in PMC.

4. Spreading for the sake of spreading. If you have a lot to get through, feel free to talk at a clip, but never using spreading as a way to make the activity exclusionary and always slow down if your opponents tell you to.

5. When people replace warranting with examples. I love examples, but they should be used to complement good warranting and not used as a replacement for good warranting.

6. Not providing content warnings before reading potentially triggering argumentation.

7. Abusive definitions. Don’t set them. Judging abusive definitions rounds are possibly the most disappointing thing in the world.

8. Being rude. You can be competitive, but please be nice to your opponents.

9. Running theory/Ks to exclude your opponents. I'm happy to vote on a well fleshed out theory shell that checks back for in-round abuse. I am NOT okay with you spreading 5 off on a team from a small school to pick up a ballot.

I know this is a lot of information in this paradigm. Please feel free to ask me any questions about any of my other preferences before the round starts. Also, if you did not understand/have a question about something in my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will never lower your speaks because you tell me that you still do not know what meta-weighing is after my really bad explanation of it in paradigm.

With that said, good luck everyone and have fun. Debate is meant to be competitive, but there is no point of doing the activity if you do not enjoy doing it. I love everything about debate: the activity, the community, and the process. You all put in a lot of work to be where you are, so I am going to do everything I can to be the best judge I can possibly be. I truly could not be more excited to be your judge!

Finally, please feel free to post round me on discord, email me at zberg@college.harvard.edu or text me at 917-710-1816 I care a lot about helping people get out of debate what I am able to get out of this activity. I will always answer any questions you have so please, please, please reach out to me.

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I am not a former debater. I'm a debate parent, coach, and Middle School Debate League administrator. I've been judging for around 10 years. For me to flow you well, don't spread or speak too quickly. Of course I try to be a blank slate and I won't tell you what arguments I think you should have run. I appreciate examples and illustrations, including hypothetical ones. I'm not a fan of repetition. I am a fan of clear definitions, plans, frameworks, models. I award speaker points based on clash, not style, but of course your delivery will make your clash more or less effective.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm