Tabroom.com

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (Online Divisions) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maxine Adams Hire

Albert Adiputra Capstone International Academy

Putri Annisa SD Academy

Gidion Tri Anugrah SD Academy

Samuel Ayodele Hire

Putri Azzahra SD Academy

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 2:55 PM WIB

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Lakshmi Bangaru Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Leena Basnyet Pembroke Pines Charter High School

Corey Becker Hire

Ashish Bindal Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Aanan Biswas Ivy Bridge Academy Korea

Lu Cai Hire

Olivia Chan VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

dhivya Chellam Joaquin Miller Middle School

Yanhua Chen Desert Vista High School

David Coates Hire

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Beth Luzann Cole Hire

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:29 AM EDT

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Travis Cornett Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Dan Crawford Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Madhura Deo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Innayah Dini Speech and Debate

Devansh Dubey Hire

Last changed on Sun March 26, 2023 at 4:23 AM IST

General

Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
The defence isn't cohesive.
Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.

Case

Be merry. Just do what you want.
Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.

Rebuttal

As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.

Summary

There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
Initial Synopsis
The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
Second Synopsis
In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
Defenses need to be made more expansive.

Final Focus

Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.

Cross

The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.

Evidence

Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.

Maya ElHawary VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Noel Frederick FDT Academy (HS) None

Harish Gaggar Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Ruchi Gupta Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Joy Hadome Hire

Anthony Homer Pine View School

Alpesh Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Charu Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Jessica Jessica SD Academy

GG Jones Pythagoras Academy

Sam Jones Hire

Dhruv Kairon VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Srinivas Kalbhavi Joaquin Miller Middle School

Last changed on Thu February 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM PDT

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

Josie Kanu BL Debate

Dina Karunia SD Academy

Austin Kelachukwu Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Thembani Regenald Khumalo Hire

Charles Kishi BL Debate

Mona Kothari Speech and Debate India Middle School

Joseph Kraus Portsmouth High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:38 AM EDT

Put forth well structured argument that outlines your points in clear contentions. Designate these contentions. Do not talk too fast. Your extra information means nothing if it is lost in a machine gun of words. Be expressive in your tone. If something is particularly important, make sure your inflection denotes this. Be passionate, but not exasperated. Remember that there are three modes of persuasion, ethos, pathos, logos. Almost all debaters bring good logos, most bring good ethos(see below), but few bring sufficient pathos. Can you get at the emotion of the issue beyond simply using a passionate tone? Bring humanity to the issue by connecting it to a specific anecdote or example. This will show you care about your topic and are showing me how it genuinely affects an individual, not just numbers. Stats are important, but numbers can blend together and be forgotten soon after they are said. A story rarely is.

Maintain courtesy in your cross and your exchanges with the opponent. Do not commit ad hominem. Do not interrupt your opponent's answer during cross. Unless he or she is being unnecessarily wordy and using up the time, let the person finish. If you have to interrupt them, do so respectfully. If you don't want a person to eat up your time, then don't ask an open ended question that allows him/her to do so. Professionalism and respect are essential to effectively winning an argument. Why would I believe what you have to say if you can't even believe in your own argument enough to let the other side say theirs?

Avoid using the word 'like' as a filler during speeches. This is a bad habit and can erode your authority as a speaker. Don't try to impress me with debate jargon. This can bog down the flow of your argument and can get away from the humanity of the issue. Public forum debate or World School debate are both supposed to appeal to any person. Excessive use of debate jargon goes against that intent.

I can recognize when you are reasserting your argument and refuting theirs within the speech when you say. 'We say..." or "They say..." or something to that effect.

Ashutosh Kumar Debate Go

Varinder Kumar Joaquin Miller Middle School

Muhammad Kuncoro Speech and Debate

Unnati Lalka Speech and Debate India Middle School

Ryaan Lari VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Gloria Lau Joaquin Miller Middle School

Sukha Lee BC Academy

Morven Liu Eticko Debate Academy None

Fara Gabriela Martínez Hire

Aditi Mhatre Speech and Debate India Middle School

Rudia Min BC Academy

Attila Mityok VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Abigail Monasebian Great Neck North High School None

Chloe Moon BC Academy

Prateek Motagi Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:54 PM EDT

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.
Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.
I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.
Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”
I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

ngl idk much about prog
I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Chantelle Muthoni Mukabi Hire

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 4:30 AM EDT

About me:

A proudly African woman from Kenya who is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents, and is a debate and judge coach to African debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Studies computer science as a university degree, and spends her free time debating, judging, listening to music, dancing, eating great food and of course, travelling!

Judging rubric:

In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:

1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.

2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebut them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true, and why it is not only important in the debate, but the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.

3. Weighing: take the best case scenario of the other side, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why, you've scored a solid win.

4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side, or try to water down their points without giving me proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems hard to engage with. Try your best!

5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Complexity does not win debates, simplicity does. Clear structure and simple but detailed analysis makes it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signaling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.

6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case is important. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments, and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity is key!

7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions, and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from everyone's different perspectives!

Good luck everyone!

Geremy Napitupulu Speech and Debate

Sambit PANDA Lambert High School

Sibi Peter Pembroke Pines Charter High School

Jonas Poggi Hire

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 6:39 AM EDT

Hello! My name is Jonas, I'm currently a coach for Walt Whitman High School. I have 4 years of HS debate experience (mostly Parli with a bit of PF), 4ish years of collegiate debate experience (British Parli and APDA), and 3ish years of coaching and judging experience (Parli, Congress, and PF).

I'll flow all your arguments, just make sure that you explain to me what your argument is, how it's relevant to the debate, and why it's important. If you want me to vote for you, have clear link work and explicit weighing of your impacts. If you tell me that "x" is the most important issue in the round, I will vote on "x." If your opponents tell me that "y" is the most important issue in the round, then you need to tell me why I should vote on "x" instead of "y," or how you can win on both "x" and "y." If you tell me something is the most important issue, I will spend more time trying to find a ballot for you on that clash. If no teams tell me where I should be voting, I will be very sad.

I won't automatically vote on drops. You still have to prove why that arg is round winning and can outweigh wherever your opponents are closest to winning.

I don't have a preference for any specific types of arguments, but please make sure your arguments relate to the round! I'm probably not going to vote for something super high magnitude but also incredibly low probability (as long as there's some pushback on that arg). So if you impact out to nuke war when the topic is about international adoptions, and your opponents say "that's highly unlikely," I probably won't vote there. If you can convince me that there's some degree of probability, then I will vote for it.

Weighing is really important. If your weighing is clear and specific, I'm more likely to vote for you. Your weighing should also be comparative. Tell me how I should weigh your arguments, and be specific about what impact you want me to vote for. Please weigh across your clashes too (if you are winning on one clash, and your opponents are winning on another, explain why you winning your clash is more important than them winning their clash).

I'm fine with speed, but I might drop some args if you are fully spreading.

Unless your k is really good and really applicable, don't run it. Not a huge fan of theory debates.

Always be respectful of your opponents. Debate should be an educational space and I will dock your speaks if you are too mean.

Have fun!

Two quick notes for the Feb PF topic:

I don't want the round to devolve into just a back and forth about the importance of one or two statistics. Barring a glaring issue (i.e. date of the study, funding for authors, skewed methodology), I would much rather you spend your time focused on the logical warrants you can make regarding the original argument, or better yet weighing your impacts. If you hit me with a "EVEN IF you don't doubt the significance x card my opponents have, here's why we still outweigh," I will be quite happy.

Similarly, I don't want the round devolving into whether or not a certain stat should apply because of confounding variables. I have noticed a lot of teams saying that their opponents' stats shouldn't apply because of x confounding variable, but then don't hold their own stats to the same accountability. Once again, I care more about the logical warranting you can use these cards for, and the weighing you can build off of the impacts.

Charles Pollack Byram Hills High School

Greg Pratt Desert Vista High School

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 10:13 AM MST

Updated 9/1/24 for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasi esque or Clark esque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
Excellent overview of Congress expectations.
PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf
Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
I reject all extinction impacts
I reject all progressive debate
I reject kritik
If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Hongjun Qu Joaquin Miller Middle School

Lakshmi Rajasekaran Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ramya Ramakrishnan William G. Enloe HS None

Rohith Raman Hire

Last changed on Fri February 11, 2022 at 12:51 PM CDT

Add me to the email chain: rohithraman4@gmail.com

he/him

Tufts 25, I debate in college, but also like not really

Top Level stuff

As a first year out, I haven't had much of any experience judging and my thoughts on debate aren't set in stone or insanely clear - I'm also not an great flow, especially online

Read whatever you want - if you're clear and fully fleshing out the args then you should be fine.

With that said, I have almost exclusively invested in k debate throughout high school - if your ideal 1NC is 6 off policy strat, then pref me much lower

The 2NR/2AR should frame my decision - how do I think about the args, what comes first and why etc - judge instruction will be rewarded and just makes decisions easier

Most of the time, tech over truth – however, I won’t vote for an arg just because it was dropped. Impact it out

Don't be a shitty person - understand how you interact with spaces like debate and change accordingly. I’ll stop the round if there’s anything racist, sexist, homophobic etc being said – goes without saying

Disclosure is good.

Notes this year - go a little slower than you usually would and record speeches in case someone cuts out if it's online. I also know very little about the topic, so limit the amount of topic specific jargon you use

Neg ---

I approach fw from the point of the broader vision each team has for debate. What discussions are you forwarding, and how do I differentiate between the two? What vision does your model have for engagement, or does that come secondary to another impact?

You are more likely to get my ballot if you explicate the end point of your model. For example, I find discussions of clash to refine political strategies or create better advocates as a much more persuasive argument than keeping clash to simply “preserve the game”. Going further and explaining why certain things matter will help a ton. A 2NC/2NR that is able to win an exportable impact and argue how it gets better throughout the year alongside some aff offense through either SSD or TVA is in a great spot

I find it shocking that a ton of fw teams will go through rounds without mentioning any specific stuff about the aff – engage with the aff

creative interps, standards, and answers are ALWAYS preferred - diversify how you approach each aff – you don’t always need to read t-usfg

Do I think procedural fairness is an impact? No. Especially if there's no actual explanation on it - you should be talking about what the unfairness looks like in round, examples of your inability to engage etc. I prefer deliberation, skills, clash based args as opposed to fairness because it gets to the question of why this matters. Fairness debates end up becoming a question of their external net benefit like clash or education, so starting there just makes more sense to me but you do you

SSD and TVA – These should be areas of the debate where you can most easily access aff offense. Most aff teams don’t know how to answer SSD, but you need to explain what reading on the neg would look like etc. The TVA doesn’t need to “solve” the aff, but I do think they need to be able to include most of the aff’s discussion somehow, especially if the aff has reasons why that discussion matters. Most neg teams will simply say the TVA doesn’t need to solve and move on, which isn’t sufficient

Don't just forget case - a significant case push makes neg ballots way more viable - most k affs don't do anything so go for presumption please

Aff ---

I tend to lean aff in these debates, but make sure there isn't ambiguity over what the aff does / you clear it up quickly – I’ll vote on presumption for sure

Just explain why the end point of their model causes [aff impact] + why that’s bad and you should be good. I personally think impact turn strats are much better because focusing on a counterinterp often forces the aff to find more common ground than offense. Regardless, decide what strat you want to go for and stick to it.

I love DA’s that target both form and content of fw

Crafty counterinterps are always great

You have to have some sort of topic link – use that to your advantage because that should be the crux of your fw answers

k stuff

General ---

I primarily read Afropessimism, Black Nihilism, Baudrillard, Semiocap/James, and Settler Colonialism, but I’m familiar with most ks in varying degrees. Regardless, nuanced explanation of the theory is important

I'm fine with debaters reading stuff outside their subject position but that requires an understanding of how your identity relates to the arguments you read and sometimes a change in the way you read the arg - whether thats how you approach talking about instances of violence or the alternative you read -- (opponents should always push on these kinds of questions) -- Its clear when a team has thought through their relationship to the scholarship and when they haven't

I'm fine with longer overviews, but I think its way more strategic and easier to flow if they are shorter - do your work on the lbl

I really like smaller k's or piks (that actually have strategic benefit)

K v policy ---

Framework is probably one of the most important part of these debates to me because it determines how I view literally everything else – if you are winning fw, I don't think an alt is needed as long as you are framing stuff correctly

"Generic links" are fine, especially if there is a broader fw push, as long as you are getting specific when extending them. Obviously, the more specific the link, the better. You should be giving me examples and pulling quotes when extending the links

K v K ---

These can be some of the best debates if well executed.

Methods need to be explained - what does the alt do? What does the aff do? You should be spending time here, include examples, quotes, etc – I think the alt should be resolving either the impact to the links and/or the aff, but if you want to go for it as a non-unique da then I need significant offense on case

That being said, explain perms fully - you should be doing more than simply showing an ideological similarity between both authors/lit bases. What does the perm look like in application? Again, examples are really helpful – I tend to lean aff on the question of no perms in a methods debate – it’s a standard for competition that tests the legitimacy of the links, but I also agree that most perms in these debates make zero sense

Theory of power stuff can get pretty muddled - make it clear - you don’t auto win if you have a better theory of power, but it helps

Policy stuff

I'm not your judge for the 8 off debates, but I'll do what I can if I’m in the back. I would much rather you limit the cards read in the block and use more analytical arguments rather than card dump – either way, make sure there is actual engagement

T ---

Default to competing interps,

More specific interps are better, but these debates can get really confusing and annoying - just explain things like definitions or what the interp looks like fully

Having case lists and describing what debates would look like under each model is always helpful

Cps ---

Try to have some explanation about what the perm looks like outside of perm do the cp in the 2ac

I don't really care about judge kick - if the neg doesn't go for it then I'll kick it but if you want to go for it as offense then sure

DAs ---

I mean just extend it properly and have offense that o/w – its pretty straight forward

Random theory stuff ---

I hate these debates - most of the time nothing is really abusive – if the 2ar goes for theory, it has to do the work of comparing its impacts to the stuff that the 2nr goes for

Other stuff

CX is really important and I flow it - just don't be rude / unnecessarily cut people off

Recutting ev is always persuasive – you definitely can get offense from unhighlighted parts of cards

Make me laugh

For LD/PF, the closer you are to policy the better.

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Mon July 15, 2024 at 6:38 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

Jordan Ramsey Pythagoras Academy

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 1:11 PM CDT

PF Paradigm: I did policy debate in high school and college, which has definitely shaped how I view debate. That being said, I have judged a lot of PF debates the past few years. I am familiar with the norms of PF and will judge accordingly. I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Unless it is against the norms/rules of the tournament, speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

I think that debates are better when more evidence is sent out. Obviously it is up to the debaters, but clash is better when both sides have access to as much evidence as possible. When you send out a card please make sure it is cut, and please do not send a link to an article and ask the judges/other team to "control F" to find your quote. Also, if you mention/extend a card in the summary/final focus, please make sure it is sent out.

If an advocacy like a K with an alternative is read in PF, I will not automatically reject it. However, I am open to "framework" type arguments that tell me to vote down the team for reading an advocacy in PF. If you think it is unfair for advocacies to be in PF, tell me how it harms you as a debater to have to debate it (say you are unprepared which harms the quality of debates, education, etc). I will treat this like any other argument, meaning that the pros and cons of allowing advocacies in PF should be debated and weighed.

Note: A lot of teams in PF have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging—prep ends at start time

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain — jramrocks17@gmail.com

About me:

· 2 years of NDT-CEDA debate at Liberty University (2020 and 2021 seasons)

· 2x NDT participant and 2x CEDA Double-Octa finalist

· 1 year of coaching policy at Liberty

· 4 years of policy and 3 years of extemp at Prosper High School in Texas

· I was a K debater most of my career but switched to policy for my last year of college debate. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library and want to see you do what you do best

TLDR: You do you. Tab/flex judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have run and seen all types of debate and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argumentative Preferences:

K: K’s are cool on the Aff and Neg. Don’t assume I understand your literature base—I’m most familiar with literature surrounding capitalism, militarism, international relations, sexuality, and to a lesser extent post modernism, blackness, and colonialism, but you should always explain your arguments in depth. I think that in order to win on a K you usually must resolve the links and impacts either through a material alternative or through framing/education/methodology. I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out

Framework:

· I have experience on both sides and will try my best to remove any bias

· I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. At the end of the round, I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense

· I strongly dislike stale framework debates where teams read generic blocks and arguments, and where there is no contextualization to the other team’s arguments. If you win a round just because the other team dropped some of your generic blocks, you gained almost no education out of that round and your speaks won’t be great

· I think that it is better for the Neg when they focus on TVAs/switch sides as opposed to focusing on their impacts alone

· I love it when the Neg uses clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense

· I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how the Aff’s counter interp solves the Neg's offense, and the Neg is better off proving that their model solves a good portion of the Aff

· I lean towards the belief that fairness is an internal link to education or whatever else the Neg is explaining, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact, I am willing to vote on it

Theory: I think that theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks

Policy Affs: Do what you want, but I think that teams benefit from extending entire advantages in each speech. I like it when the Aff uses its 1AC to debate each off case and uses its advantages to frame the whole debate on each flow

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). Answer perms and solvency deficits and explain your net benefit. I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no Aff or Neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the Aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo. Judge kick will be my default, but I will disallow it if the Aff wins that it is bad

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case (although this is not required) and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth level of the DA and quality of your cards is relevant. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech

Impact Turns: I’m cool with them and think that they can be strategic—just don’t double turn yourself (ie don’t read “China war good” on case and a China war impact on a DA). I think the level of truth does matter (ie dedev is better than spark but still questionable), but at the end of the day I will vote on tech and card quality

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument and won't reject any interp just because I think it is false. I want a clear interp debate. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because nowhere else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Random things:

· Speak as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

· Flashing/emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

· Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

· Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise

· Please don’t be rude or mean, and don’t discriminate against others or read arguments that discriminate against others

· I refuse to judge any "death good" arguments, mostly because the burden shouldn't be on the other team to ask me to end the round

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

Tech--X----------------------Truth

Death good is valid------------------------X No!

Ks of fiat-------------------X-----Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaks:

· Speaker points are low key an arbitrary vibe check, but I try to give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and cross ex

· A 28 to 28.5 is average, and it’ll and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

· I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Events:

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote based on which side better accesses the winning framework in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills

Speech: I competed in extemp in high school and broke at NSDA in FX, and I enjoy good speeches. I will weigh the content of your speech vs your performance/tone differently based on the specific event

Ria Riesner Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 5:05 PM EDT

Hi my name is Ria, I competed in Policy, PF and Lincoln-Douglas for four years in high school. I've been judging policy, LD, Congress, PF and Parli since then. Ive judged for WACFL, VHSL and for several CA HS debates so far. I've judged every kind of debate, MetroFinals, State semifinals, I've judged up to semi-final elimination rounds (before final finals) in the Debate HS National Championships NSDA Nationals in DC.

Send me your plans before the start of the round I judge you on - this will make me much more able to consider your framework and go through the finer points in your argument. My email is riamerrill@yahoo.com.

Speed

I prefer debaters to speak at about 70% of their maximum speech speed. I do not appreciate spreading at all. So spreading in rounds I highly discourage. It is the debaters responsibility to make sure that I can hear all evidence, contentions, etc. If I didn't hear it, that I can't judge you on a statement that I didn't hear!

Prep Time -

Please let me know at the start of the round if you will take running prep or set minutes at a time between arguments.

Time Keeping - I will keep time for all arguments, but I highly encourage debaters to keep their own time for each argument and also to keep time for their opponents speeches, in order to encourage a nice tight debate.

Arguments.

Come into the debate prepared for the debate. Do NOT ask me for prep time at the start of a debate. You should have done that earlier.

I will always use a reasonability standard in judging arguments. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

I very much as a judge appreciate Cross X's that don't run over time and I judge accordingly on that matter.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Please do not make a case without backing that up with strong evidence and examples. That just depresses me in a debate frankly. That ruins the framework of an argument on a case Aff OR Neg for me.

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you go ahead and run them.)

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus ill formed half baked ideas or ill-linked impacts

I appreciate weighing mechanisms where you explain to me why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents.

Rudeness and i.e. talking over your opponent when they are already speaking first, will lose you speaker points.

Overall I really value clear logical presentations of your case, the clearer and more logical your framework, the stronger your case is likely to be.

I do not get much out of hearing information repeated multiple times over and over in a round. Keep your arguments fresh!

I appreciate when debaters give me voters during the final speeches in a round.

Speaker Points

I judge primarily between 25-30. I have given a 21 to debaters who neglected to bring laptops or any evidence in a debate and just spoke extemporaneously in a policy round before. I have severely penalized a debater who referred to Africa as a country 6 times in a speech. Africa is not a country!

I VALUE clear speech and a minimization in speeches of sentence fillers such as Ahhhs and ummms. Language fluency and flow is highly valued to me as a judge in terms of rewarding speaker points.

25 is a problematic round, with gaping flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, patently incorrect information cited, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a milquetoast round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management on presenting the case in the context of argument times, or in language fluency and flow in speeches, which makes understanding or believing the case much more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no glaring mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent apparent errors fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, or made a few minor mistakes in speech which were not repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices and strategies well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which very fast speaking speed often creates.

Judging style

In a debate, I strongly look toward framework, impact analysis and evidence to support claims. I very much value specific statistics to make a claim over a general statement.

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” —Christopher Hitchens - I met him in Beirut in grad school in 2009. We went out for cocktails after he gave a speech to my grad school class at the American U of Beirut. Then a very happily tipsy Hitchens decided to go out running like a banshee late night through the Beirut streets and then decided to rip down a poster of an SSNP (Syrian Nationalist Party) slogan, apparently within sight of some SSNP nationalists, and he was promptly beaten up by a bunch of Syrian Nationalists in Beirut that night. I always feel bad about that one, if Hitchens had had just listened to my advice that he stay at the bar, that beating by SSNP thugs wouldn't have happened. Hitchens was dead 2 years later. RIP.

Counterplans

I'm fine with counterplans if its a tight, cogent counterplan that is topical to the debate round.

Virtual Debate

Please stay in the frame of your camera during the debate. Share me on your plans - add me to the email chain - riamerrill@yahoo.com

.I look forward to when I get to judge a really excited, clashy debate!

Niki Samtani Lumos Debate Institute (MS) None

Kelly Schwab Pembroke Pines Charter High School

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

Jai Sehgal Hire

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:20 PM CDT

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

A Shah Joaquin Miller Middle School

Hiral Shah Speech and Debate India Middle School

Joy Taw Ascent Academy

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 11:44 PM BST

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

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 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 but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

Dinesh Thandapani Joaquin Miller Middle School

Elita Uch VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Karan Verma Speech and Debate India Middle School

Ashley Wang Eticko Debate Academy

Jasmine Wang Eticko Debate Academy

Ke Wang Middleton

Mike Wascher Beijing independent

Last changed on Thu April 5, 2018 at 3:47 PM EDT

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

Toby Whisenhunt Raven Independent

Judge Shawn Yen Hire

Jian Ying Fleetwood Park Secondary School

Sarah Yu Eticko Debate Academy

Sohui Yu Desert Vista High School None

Ji Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Yali Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Xuan Zhao Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Login to Tabroom

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (Online Divisions) Paradigm List

Judges