Tabroom.com

Mid America Cup

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sebastian Alcaraz FUHS 3 rounds

Jack Ave* Johnston 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:31 AM CDT

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

Bryan Benitez Delbarton School 6 rounds

Chris Bian Dulles High School 3 rounds

Barry Borowitz La Salle College Preparatory 3 rounds

Bo Ava Chen Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Guoxiang Chen Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Maddie Cook* Lakeville North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 11:00 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to flip and start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Lynne Coyne Myers Park High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:18 AM EDT

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Riya Dev Oakton 3 rounds

Valarie Dixon SF Roosevelt Independent 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 8:51 AM CDT

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

Joseph Donowho Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Hannah Du Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School 6 rounds

Chandler Farquhar* Ames 3 rounds None

Sebastian Glos Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) try and set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 3rd year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu ( if wanna join lmk! )

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine, weigh warrant, signpost, try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.
Progressive: I have came to the conclusion that if you are at a varsity national tournament, you should be prepared to debate some type of progressive argumentation. Now, this doesnt mean run theory or a K on some novices. Specifics: K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I have read some Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, Security, and psycho, would claim to be an expert on any of these tho. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting. T is fun but never read :(

Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.
Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.
Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence
post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

Zac Grant Myers Park High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 11, 2024 at 5:06 AM EDT

In the 20th century, I was a reasonably successful college debater and university coach.

Written judge paradigms were just coming into use back then. My favorite was from Tuna Snider. It read as follows:

"We gather. You debate. I decide."

That seems a great place to start. Here are a few things that may be helpful.

SPEED -- Though I have debated with and against speakers as fast as you can imagine, there is NO WAY I will read/follow a document to understand you during your speech. Be audible, signpost well, and have the strategic chops to parse out a winning solution. It is up to you, not me, to make sure you're being clear -- I never say "clear." Unless you're good at it (really good at it) spreading is annoying to me. That goes double if we're in a format other than CX, and triple if you're beating up on a less experienced opponent.

STYLE -- You're giving a speech. I'm an audience. Read the room. Make me glad I showed up to hear you. Be courteous to your opponents. I understand the round may crackle with rivalry. Lean into it with grace. Most of my best friends are the people I debated with and against back in the day. I won't ask to see any of your materials unless they're verbally contested, or I'm curious. This is a speaking contest, not an essay contest.

SUBSTANCE -- When it's clear you have a solid grasp of the subject matter, that's persuasive. Next level is you hearing and understanding your opponent, and returning on-point replies, with or without evidence. Hyperdrive is when you carry all that through to the final speeches and articulate a genuine solution to the debate.

THEORY/K's, etc. -- I will listen to what you have to say, if you give me sufficient reason to do so, at a pace I can digest. That said, the further you stray from simply affirming or negating the resolution, it's exponentially more likely I'll agree with your opponent's reaction. Thus, if you happen to find yourself defending against some esoteric K or theory onslaught, answer your opponent's argument as best you can. I'm likely to agree with you.

Let's learn, compete, and have fun!

Eli Gripenstraw Brentwood High School 6 rounds

Zach Harnden* Dowling Catholic High School 6 rounds

James Hayes* Theodore Roosevelt High School 3 rounds

Daniel Hearne James Bowie High School 3 rounds

Yunyi Hu Canyon Crest Academy 5 rounds

Yutong Hu Cranbrook 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 10:03 AM EDT

hyt60435@gmail.com | she/her | college freshman

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive arguments.

Current debater at Carnegie Mellon University. I have debated 4 years of varsity PF on both local and national circuits during high school at Cranbrook.

You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.

Include me in speech docs and email chains. My WiFi is terrible -> please speech doc.

Logistics

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.

If there's a piece of evidence that is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you.

I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV.

Speed

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 250wpm - 300wpm is the max speed for clarity with a speech doc.

If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.

Substance

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case.

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :)

Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well, with the exception of obvious discrimination or micro-aggression from your opponents (although at this point I'd drop them regardless).

Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

Framework

Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework.

I don't like frameworks that are warranted to "vote for this argument to spread awareness" or "because this issue is on the back burner in the real world then we should evaluate this first in this round."

I will vote correctly on frameworks but it doesn't mean I like them. If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.

In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki).

TLDR: Util > other framing

Uday Jain Princeton 6 rounds

Michael Kamison JR Masterman 3 rounds

Shruthika Kandukuri Interlake HS 6 rounds None

Charles Karcher The Chapin School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 6:52 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
Put your analytics in the speech doc!
Trigger warnings are important
CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Abhi Karri Millard North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM EDT

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Background: I went to Millard North from 2019-2023 and am currently a biochemistry and finance double major at UNL. I'm also premed so if you have any questions about that feel free to ask.

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- abhi1karri@gmail.com

Experience:

Background: I did PF for 4 years at Millard North High School, from 2019-2023. Throughout my career, I got a total of 6 bids and qualified for nats 3 times.

Coaching: I'm currently a private coach, email me if you're interested.

General:

I like seeing the different strategies applied by different teams. That's why I'm open to almost anything and all the preferences I talk about are things that can be overcome with good debating. With that being said here are my thoughts and preferences:

Tech > Truth. Please go for conceded arguments because they are considered true on my flow so it makes both our lives easier by going for it. I will say tho conceding an arg is not the end of the world because I'll still be open to weighing/cross applications against it.

I can only vote on an argument if I understand what I'm voting on so explain what you are going for in a way that I can understand. That doesn't mean to give me a 30-second extension it just means to be understandable when you explain ur arguments, especially the important ones in the round.

Being blatantly rude/cheating/bad evidence ethics in round is an easy way to get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how "good at debate" you may be, there's no excuse for this. With that being said I average a 28 on the nat circuit and 28.5 on local but I do believe speaks are very subjective so I'm very easily influenced by any sort of "give us all 30s" arguments.

I'm fine with speed up to 250 wpm but anything over that and I'd need a speech doc.

Preferences:

I'd like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Your weighing should also be comparative, not just restating your impacts and saying you outweigh but linking it to some sort of mechanism and giving a comparison between different impacts. I also think prereqs and link-ins are underutilized in PFso remember to use those.

Probability is one of the least important weighing mechanisms to me. 99% of the time if you win your link and internal link you win near 100% prob so this won't be too persuasive of a weighing mechanism in front of me.

Please organize your speech and signpost throughout your speech. There's nothing more frustrating than flowing a speech where everything is jumping around.

Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus: I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should roughly mirror the summary speech.

Cross: What you say in cross is binding, but I don't flow or listen too hard to it. If something happens bring it up in the next speech for it to be evaluated in the round.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence. You should also have all your ev ready to send over or just send a speechdoc beforehand so I don't care if you prep while your opponent is looking for their evidence to send.

Progressive Args:

I debated a couple of tournaments of NFA LD and have judged a lot of progressive rounds by now so I understand most progressive args. The only thing I'd be hesitant about running in front of me is kaffs because I lowk don't know much about them. Here are my thoughts on specific progressive args/ks:

Theory: Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. I know what's considered frivolous is subjective so if your shell falls in the grey zone I'll be open to arguments for why/why not something is friv. That does not mean to run smth stupid like shoe theory in front of me and expect me to buy an argument for why it's not frivolous.

CIs are not always necessary, if you don't have one I'll just assume you are defending the violation. You can still gain offense through a myriad of ways. DTA or DTD doesn't have to be explicitly said as long as there is a voter and a sufficient warrant behind it. Almost everything else (yes/no RVIs, Reasonability over CIs, etc.) can be argued in the theory debate and I try my best to take a neutral stance on them. The most important thing to understand is that regardless of whether you know all the jargon behind theory debate if you are making proper, well-warranted arguments with an impact that will most of the time be sufficient.

I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. It will be very hard to convince me that paraphrasing is good but a good disclosure debate can go either way. This isn't to say that you can't win in front of me by paraphrasing it's just saying I have a high threshold for believing that it is good.

I'll evaluate IVIs if they are well warranted and impacted out. The most important IVI that all teams should look for is when teams violate their own shell. Running something like disclo without disclosing is one of the easiest ways to get dropped so make sure to point something like that out if it happens in the round.

T: I'm fine with T in PF. I think there are def instances where people stretch the resolution way too much so I wouldn't complain if T is introduced in the round. Keep in mind that interps should have definitions within them or it will be an uphill battle.

Ks: I've debated ks before so I know more than the average judge about it but I would still be cautious running one in front of me. Be very explanatory throughout the round and explain to me exactly what my ballot does. The ks I have the most experience with are cap and security so I feel like I'd be able to evaluate those to a certain extent but I have like no experience with non-topical ks so be even more careful about running those with me. I also expect you to have a fairly strong alt if you are trying to solve a massive problem.

As for responses to ks, I'm familiar with most. I think perms, T, and Fwk are all good ways to respond to ks so make sure to utilize those and I will understand what you are saying.

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

I'll always disclose unless the tournament explicitly says otherwise.

Please ask questions about my decision/ask for advice. I'll always be open to explaining any part of my decision and explaining my thoughts on certain arguments. Asking questions is also the best way to improve so never be afraid to do it.

Disagreeing with my decision/being upset about losing is fine, just don't attack me for it.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school and did okay I'd probably dislike judging it because from what I've seen no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

Julia Kennedy Poly Prep Country Day School 6 rounds

Parker Klyn* Theodore Roosevelt High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 5:02 PM CDT

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon. I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

I love debate and enjoy judging.
Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
Fulfilling my team's obligation.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive." Good luck!

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want, although I will not flow off a speech doc so you do actually have to be clear and intelligible

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

Still learning natcirc LD. However, I've watched dozens of those types of rounds on YouTube and am confident in my ability to evaluate debates. You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Please attempt to write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this.

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Lalit Kumar Livingston High School 6 rounds

Mehul Lakhanpal Tristate Independent 6 rounds

Shiva Lakshmanan Interlake HS 4 rounds None

Paulina Lavrova* Ames 3 rounds

David Levin St. Luke's School 5 rounds

Ruozhen Li Langley 3 rounds

charles liang St.Albans/Cathedral 3 rounds

Gang Liu Bergen County Academies 6 rounds

Hu Liu East Ridge High School 3 rounds

Ryan Magalhaes* Dowling Catholic High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM CDT

General Info

I debated public forum all through high school and have done LD and Parli for three years now in college. I am familiar with technical debate from simple T-shells all the way up to Debate Ks. I can also evaluate on the surface level of standard cost/benefit analysis.

Winning my Ballot

Weighing mechanism and impacts are important for me. Tell me what I should vote on and why that means I should vote for you, this includes T and theory. I will not vote on those, if you don't tell me why they matter in the round. You can win on abstract weighing, such as mode of thought arguments, but you need to explain why they're bad. I am a heavy flow debater, so I appreciate sign posting and structure. Ink on the flow is important, dropping arguments can make it very hard to win.

Alongside that, for PF especially you should have a weighing mechanism in case. 1, it helps me understand the theme. 2, it puts all your cards on the table at the start.

Also if you argue nuke war, hope your opponent doesn't question it, because I am highly skeptical of claims that any kind of provocation is going to lead to a nuclear apocalypse. If you can demonstrate an imbalance of nuclear capabilities that is truly significant, you have a chance. Probability will still be low, but I will actually weigh it. Generally though, I don't like low probability-high impact arguments. Along with that, if you say something that is manifestly untrue, it's going to be very easy for your opponent to beat the claim ex. saying that State governments are the same as the federal government. And I don't like deontology as a criterion. It's super common and it doesn't work very often. Please use something else, virtue ethics would be my recommendation.

In any debate format, please avoid just reading cards at me. I appreciate clear, simple statements of impacts and links. I care a lot less about what some author says, than I do about your ability to synthesize information and arguments. (P.S. changing speeds will help with this. You can go faster on cards, then in analytics or tags).

Technical Arguments

Overview - I love LD, but Public forum is a different style. Speeding, Theory and K should be kept in LD and policy, so PF remains accessible. That means that everything I'm about to say doesn't apply to PF. For PF, be much more conversational and avoid shells of any variety, unless you really need to.

CP - Not sure if this belongs in tech, but oh well. CPs need don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, but it needs to be substantially different. Otherwise, the debate turns into a really mushy thing were it's really hard to distinguish between aff and neg voters.

Ks - I love Ks and am very familiar with the literature, particularly for Cap Ks. The flipside of that is if you do not actually understand your Ks, I will be able to tell. Identity Ks should only be run if 1. there is genuine discriminatory language and 2. you've asked your opponent not to use the language and they refused. If your opponent misgenders you once, you don't correct them, and then you run a K, I'm going to vote you down for leveraging your identity to win the round. Please give your opponents the opportunity to correct themselves, it is very important. I despise K Affs with a passion and a vengeance. They contribute nothing to the debate space besides frustrating inexperienced debaters and completely derail the event. If you run a K aff in front of me, I'm voting you down and giving you the second lowest speaks possible.

Theory - As above, I will vote on theory above anything else, you just have to explain why I should. I also will not vote for a T or Theory if you can't prove abuse. Not necessarily in-round abuse, but I need you to show me something. Disclosure theory in particular is unpersuasive to me, I've been very successful in LD debate with very little use of the Wiki, so I'm skeptical that it's abusive.

T - I will primarily evaluate T-shells based on interpretations, so make sure you have a good reason why I should prefer yours. Also don't forget impacts. If you prove your opponent breaks a rule, but not that it caused any problems, why is it a rule I should follow?

PF - Pleeeaassee don't speed in PF. I will understand you, but I will not be happy.

Closing Thoughts

The primary purpose of debate is education and competition. If you're being rude to your opponent in anyway- either doing any "isms" or just general rudeness -your speaker points will suffer. Be respectful. Be intelligent. And most of all be cool!

Evan Mao Winston Churchill High School 6 rounds

Dylan McEntyre Coronado HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 10, 2024 at 8:54 AM EDT

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Bill Mcnairy Myers Park High School 4 rounds

Ananya Mitra Millard North High School 6 rounds None

Narendra Nallam NCSSM 3 rounds

Abraham Paik University School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 19, 2024 at 6:33 AM EDT

most recent updates:

If you're gunna have a timer ring when your opponents reach the exact second of their speech time, you better have it ring for yourself too. This applies to holding up the phone too. (I'm also timing for myself and notice this anyways)

If both teams agree, I'm more than happy (MORE THAN HAPPY!!) to cut all prep time for 6 additional minutes of grand cross, and speaks will be rewarded very heavily if this happens [floor 29.5s] :) (For LD, I'd happily cut all prep for an 8 min crossfire between 1ar and 2nr)

I reward humor in speaks.

please send all cases (and cut cards) to: apapap1919848jj@gmail.com prior to constructive for me to read along w you. Also send rebuttals if you plan on using a doc.

I kinda don't care about cross in tech rounds. If something important happens, say so in a speech.

For prog stuff, I'm really pretty out of the loop in terms of jargon. Explain it well.

---

Hi I'm Abraham (he/him).

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to anyone in any way, please let me know and we can work on something together :)

I evaluate the round primarily off of the arguments made.

Properly extended links, warrants, and impacts (with good frontlines, as necessary) that are clearly compared against - and weighed over - other arguments (on link, warrant, and impact level, also as necessary) will win my ballot. (Proper weighing isn't just saying "probability" or "magnitude." It must be directly and specifically comparative)

That being said, I'm also a fan of "big picture" and "narrative" style debating. Make your arguments fit a clear theme, or have a theme around your arguments: make and frame the round (or at least your arguments) about a bigger idea or concept. Boil your points (and narrative) down to a concise, simple, and memorable message or thesis (if you can, aim for a unique narrative as well). Also, weighing your narrative makes it all the more persuasive. [To be clear, I think narrative debate won't necessarily decide who I vote for: if you win the narrative but lose all your arguments, I'm probably gunna drop you - but, if you win your arguments and can make a good, effective narrative as well (while not abandoning the flow), I will like that, and give higher speaks. Narrative can also be helpful for winning close rounds as well.]

I also a sucker for clever bits of rhetoric, such as well thought-out and executed analogies or witty chiasmus (to be clear, good rhetoric alone won't win you the round, but it'll help your speaks). Funny quips are also good.

Be smart and strategic. You can go fast if you want.

Also if something is dropped in the speech after it is read, it is dropped for the round. So, if 1st Rebuttal reads something, 2nd Rebuttal drops it, 1st Summary extends it as dropped, it is TOO LATE for 2nd Summary to read new responses (2nd Summary CAN weigh against it though). That being said, new stuff can be in 2nd Summary if it's "advancing the debate" in my opinion. So, if R1 says something, R2 responds, S1 rebuilds/responds to what R2 said, S2 can further "advance the debate" on said thing, giving new analysis / evidence to what S1 said in response to R2. This is rather rare though, often the debate doesn't get to that level. If that does happen, and S2 says new stuff that specifically responds to S1's response to R2's response to R1's response, F1 can advance the debate even farther by saying new stuff in response to S2's new response (which is in response to S1's new stuff, which responds to R2's new stuff). So yeah, new in final is ok in this case. In theory, that means that F2 can say new things as well if it's responding to new analysis from F1, but this is such a specific and small case that I doubt it will happen. Generally, rather than continuing to go back and fourth like that on some response by adding new stuff or warranting, teams should weigh the response against the case/frontlines given, or weigh the case/frontline against the response. It's cleaner and easier.

Also, if one team makes a poor extension (misses links or whatever) and the other team points it out in the speech after, that counts as pretty terminal defense, e.g. if 1st Summary extends case poorly, and 2nd Summary points that out, then that arg is pretty sufficiently responded to in my view. It's also too late for 1st Final to try to extend fully to make up for 1st Summary. BUT: if 1st Final does try to revive it, 2nd Final should point out the improper extension made in 1st Summary.

**PLEASE don't be afraid to ask me any questions 1) before the round, about anything covered or not covered here, or 2) after the round, about anything in my decision or evaluation of the round - just as you all want to improve as debaters, I want to improve as a judge. (Please postround me. I do not find it disrespectful. Please postround. PLEASE!)

Other stuff that other judges probably have that might be helpful for you as a debater:

- i'M a FoRmEr Pf DeBaTeR

- Go as fast as you want. I'll let you know if it's too fast or unclear what you're saying.

- 2nd Rebuttal doesn't HAVE to frontline anything necessarily, but it's usually strategic to do so. If R2 speaker does not frontline anything on their own case, all the defense (and turns) is/are conceded, which basically means that their case is now perma gg'ed. Some rounds it doesn't make sense to frontline case though. Up to you to decide what to do in R2 that's strategically best for you in the round. Basically, if you wanna win case, you should probably frontline in R2, but it's not necessarily always strategic to try to win case...

- bE rEsPeCtFuL iN cRoSs -> meh I don't really care. Be aggro if you want, I was always kind of aggro in cross, don't be outright mean though - let them talk. You can push for concessions and stuff tho, or try to ask trap questions to put them in a bind. If they do concede something important, mention it in a speech - the first one that you can after the cross in which the concession was made (if they concede a contention in 1st cross, have rebuttal mention it - don't say nothing about it in rebuttal and expect me to value the concession if it's only later explained in summary)

- email chain or google doc is preferred.

- wear whatever you want in the round - I don't have a preference on whether you're in a suit or a t-shirt - whatever you feel comfortable in and helps you debate the best (for me, it was a suit lol, but my partner liked casual dress)

- If you get to round before your opponents and I'm also in the room (like one team and I are just chilling, waiting for the other team), you can challenge me to a game of online chess (probably blitz) on lichess/chess.com, you don't need an account to play btw. If you beat me, +.3 speaks. If I beat you, auto L20. Jk. If I win, nothing happens, if you win, slight speaks boost (you'll get more depending on how badly you beat me. If you crush me in a beautiful way, sacrificing your queen for some crazy checkmate pattern, I might award you up to +.8 speaks or whatever). If you also wanna just play for fun, that's cool too. [note: I'm not that good at chess, but I enjoy it, so challenge me and you can probably win some free speaks] [note: you can also still get a 30 without playing chess w me]

---

Please use a proper content warning prior to discussing potentially sensitive topics in speech. What that means:

1. Say, before the speech begins, a brief content warning statement (eg. "Brief content warning, this speech discusses nongraphic references to _____. We will provide an anonymous google form for opting in or out, as well as additional questions")

2. Send a link to an anonymous google form in the chat (or some other anonymous system, ideally not phone number). Provide not only a "opt in / opt out" option, but also a box for anonymous questions that could be used to ask for more specifics on something. State, however, that such questions will be answered out loud, unless specified otherwise. (You can make a link shareable google form in about 2 minutes. If needed, I can make one)

3. Wait until you receive "opt in" for every person participating in the round - BOTH opponents, and ALL judges. You can ask spectators to please leave the room if they would like to opt out.

4. If there is unanimous "opt in", say so out loud, and you may proceed with your speech. If there is EVEN ONE "opt out," please DO NOT proceed with your speech. If the CWed argument was a block, don't read that block, if it was a contention, read a different contention.

5. If you forgot to do this before your speech, and you started your speech, and realized you are about to make an argument about a potentially sensitive topic, please PAUSE YOUR SPEECH, proceed with the above steps, and you may resume your speech when all participants have answered, adjusting your speech accordingly. You will not be penalized in any way for doing this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it.

Please follow these steps. Failure to follow these steps will make me unhappy, and potentially cause bad experiences for other members of the round. If you fail to do this, the bar for content warning theory is low, and I'll probably vote off it. Debate should be safe and accessible for all, no exceptions.

---

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION (feel free to skip this section if you're not gunna read some prog.)

I DO evaluate progressive argumentation. High bar though, must be done properly. If not, I’ll just look elsewhere, and you will have wasted your speech time. Be smart about it. Also, the same rules for extending regular arguments applies to prog too. If you want me to vote off of it, you gotta extend it properly and fully. If the other team calls out a poor extension, that's probably GG for the prog argumentation, unless perhaps you make some new prog warrants as to why it shouldn't be GG, and why I should change my judging philosophy. The bar for responses to that kind of prog ideas (ideas like my partner's summary extension can be sus and you should still vote for it bc XYZ) is pretty low - the other team doesn't have to say much for me to not believe the prog warrants for why I should let bad extensions happen. Oh yeah, that also means don't read new prog warrants in 2nd FF as to why your partner's bad 2nd Summary extension is permissible, it's too late lol. Even if other team doesn't make technical responses like "they dropped role of the ballot," if the prog team did, in fact, drop some crucial part to the argument, then I still probably won't vote for it (unless you give me prog reasons why I should vote for it anyway).

If you are going to read prog, let me know before the speech so I can get another piece of paper. If what you're going to do is really out there, feel free to ask me about it before the round starts, I can give you my opinions on it / if I know how to evaluate it.

I'm down for some wacky stuff - you could run some prog saying I should evaluate rounds differently - like, if you give good warrants as to why I should just not pay attention to their 2nd Final for whatever reason lol, and it's like uncontested, I'll probably buy it, given it's done in a good way, presented sufficiently early in the round. That being said, there are some things I can't do. I can't give double win or loss, as far as I know. I can't give you 100 speaks. (I mean maybe if a team makes a prog arg saying I should do one of those things, and then proceeds to tell me how to do it bc I'm dumb and don't know how to hack tabroom's code to let me do something like that, then maybe I'll do it haha). Other than that, I'm open to prog stuff relating other, less rigid parts of the debate, like maybe speech times or something.

Args for presumption are important if you want me to presume a specific way. If no presumption arguments are made and I have to presume, I'll probably flip a coin or have siri flip a coin. If it's your strategy to have the round decided on a coinflip, great! If not, make args to why I should presume a certain way.

ALSO: don't just dump unintelligible prog on some novices or something. No point. If you're like a senior and you can't beat a novice team on the flow without prog, cmon. (this is a little tricky because ideally everyone should be evaluated on an equal plane, but there's a pretty big prog disparity on the circuit. I don't want to say I'll drop you for running prog in bad faith, because I understand that prog has some clear strategic benefits, but idk. I guess if you're gunna run prog for the ballot, make it AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE for the opponents, ESPECIALLY if you know they may not specialize in this style of debate. I think we'd all prefer a good round over of a bad one, where the opponents are completely shut out from debating.

If you get prog run on you, and you'd rather concede the round to spend the remaining time to just discuss prog in general or discuss the arguments that the prog team read, with the goal of furthering understanding, that's cool with me.

ALSO: if you do run prog: be nice about it. If the opponents genuinely don't understand / are trying to understand it better, don't be mean to them. If you are, I might drop you just because.

ALSO: I reserve the right to intervene on / against any specific prog argumentation - like if someone makes an especially problematic prog argument, I may intervene against it. I also am not opposed to intervening and/or ending the round for reasons of mental wellbeing - eg: if a team asks me to end the round over a content warning shell, and I believe it is warranted, I will end the round.

Feel free to ask me questions about prog before the round. That being said, my knowledge and understanding of this style of debate is by no means exhaustive. I know there's a lot I don't know about prog.

Tom Perret Park City 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 6:41 AM MDT

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

Vikas Puri Thomas S. Wootton HS 3 rounds

Sheila Qi Richard Montgomery High School 6 rounds

Jason Ren Princeton 6 rounds

Morgan Russell Norman North High School 3 rounds

Indigo Sabin Eagan High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 8:42 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: indigo.sabin@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Hey all! I did Debate for four years at Eagan Highschool, and am a current freshman in college. Feel free to ask me any and all questions before the round. I’m happy to disclose if the tournament allows, and I’m also happy to answer any questions regarding my decision. However, know that my decision will obviously not change after talking to me after round.

General stuff: I'm Tech>Truth, which means I will evaluate all arguments no matter the legitimacy of it. That doesn’t mean I want to though! I think the longer Im involved with debate, the more I’ve started to lean toward the truth side of things. This is mostly because I don’t want to vote off of a bad argument just because it's funny. I think it’s so much fun to write those cases, and use them when you’re out of then tournament or with your friends. But I also know that can be frustrating for some trying to take each round seriously, regardless of their position in the tournament. I will vote for these arguments if you win on the tech, but I don’t want to, and you’re going to have to do a lot of work to do that in the first place. If there is actually no clear offense on either side I vote neg on presumption, which is lame, but so is a lack of evidence. I’m not really worried about that though.

Aggression: I truly despise aggressive debaters within cross and if you are one of those people I will give you a 25. Please be nice to each other. Debate is a activity/game we play to further our learning, understanding, and argumentation, not to show that we are better or that our opponents are foolish for not acting the same as you.

How to win my ballot:I’m looking for clear and concise argumentation along with consistent and comparative weighing. Speed is fine, but clarity is key in terms of persuasiveness. I also ask if you are going fast that you’ll send a speech doc. Im a judge that likes to call cards, and if you’re going to go fast on top of that, I would prefer receiving speech docs. As I said earlier I will vote on just about anything, but I need to see strong warranting at every level of the link chain, and I need YOU to tell me why your case is better than the opponents. Basically whatever side will be the easiest and clearest path for me to vote, I’m going to take it. So I ask you make it easier for me, because messy debates are, well, a mess to deal with.

Weighing: I'm begging you to weigh. And start weighing ans early ans you can. Weighing in rebuttal has never hurt a team, and just creates a stronger narrative for your side, and why you should win. Weighing becomes one of the first things to be forgotten, which makes more work for me to do comparison for you. You really don't want that, because I am not going to look at your contention the same way you do, so tell me how to look at it!Otherwise I'm going to make a decision 50% of you don't love.

Back half: Please condense the flow within your Summary, I do not need every single argument I've heard this round within your summary. First summary is fine to bring up some brief evidence to block out the negatives rebuttal. After Second summary I will evaluate absolutely nothing that is new within any of these speeches. FF should just be a more concise summary that uses THE EXACT argumentation used within summary. I absolutely hate bringing up new arguments in final focus and just thinking about it now makes me sad.

Theory/Prog:I do and will evaluate theory, but I will not vote for any frivolous theory.

-I’m a paraphrasing hack, because evidence in debate is so atrocious. You need to have the evidence in your card verbatim, and you need to have cut cards, I’m begging you.

-I will vote on trigger warning theory if one hasn’t been provided. I’m not stingy on how this is done, you can give a trigger warning verbally, or through a google form. I really don’t care how the trigger warning is delivered, as long as both sides understand the content they’re going to hear.

-I like disclosure, but it’s not an auto-win if you’re in the pro disclosure side. I really don’t love judging disclosure but I will.

-I’m not the best judge to evaluate Ks but I will. It’s not my favorite debate, and I don’t really see much of a purpose. All arguments and experiences are valid, but there’s a time and a place for those to be argued for. I think since most people don’t have good answers to it, it becomes a tool used to win, rather than to highlight an issue within our community or world.

Speaker Points: 99% of the time I won't give you anything lower than a 27, unless you say something truly triggering, offensive, racist, sexist, or rude in any way. Tbh speaker points are pretty dumb, so I give relatively high speaks. I wouldn't worry about it as long as you're a half decent human being. But if you’re really looking for that 30, here’s what I’m looking for.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Evelynn Shafer SF Roosevelt Independent 3 rounds

Bryce Sheffield Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 1:01 PM CDT

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME. If the email chain is sent at start time (WITH A DOC PF DEBATERS) both teams will get .2 speaks boost.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

Zhaoxing Shi Hamilton High School 3 rounds

Raj Solanki Delbarton School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 6:10 AM CDT

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

~~30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptop~~I will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

"I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

take flex prep if needed

Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Kimberly Stiele The Blake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 11, 2023 at 3:46 AM CDT

Stop asking me if I can handle speed. The question is can you handle speed? If you are clear and persuasive that is what matters. If you speak fast and don't articulate that is not an indictment on my ability to handle speed it is a lack of clarity.

Hope that helps everyone answer the question.

I was a HS policy debater from 1993-1997 for Bloomington Jefferson. My coaches and influences considered themselves "Dinosaurs" at the time, which was my training and shaped experience. I attended summer camps at colleges for three years including Northwestern my senior year. I have a current debater, so I debated and I am engrossed in the current with my own student at Blake.

General

Please add me to the email chain! k.stiele@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. The first speaking team should initiate the email chain. Label it along the lines of 'Tournament Round number aff speaking team + speaking order vs. neg speaking team + speaking order. I understand that you are not advocating for your personal views and it would be unfair of me to inject mine. I try to be tabula rasa, however I acknowledge that it is impossible to be truly without biases.

I don't care whether you sit or stand, or what you wear.

In general, if you take more than two minutes to send evidence I will start your prep time (and if it is a persistent issue your speaks will decline). And decline is a euphemism. Similarly, rudeness will also tank your speaker points.

I don't believe in sticky defense. If you want something to matter in the round than it should be in every speech. You have time.

If you want to win the round, the main thing you should be doing is weighing the most important arguments in the round and extending them throughout speeches. I will not be voting for a bunch of blippy arguments you make throughout the round but rather a few arguments that are properly warranted, compared through weighing and extended throughout all speeches. I will not evaluate new arguments in ff and you shouldn't be introducing new evidence after 1st summary.

Ks and theory are fine, I ran Ks during my policy career (specifically orientalism). I do prefer actual topicality over Ks, however. I also default to reasonability on Ks, don't run wack Ks in one of my rounds, I will be very disappointed

I dislike IVIs. I would probably intervene before you got the chance to read an IVI if this is genuinely an issue.

On theory, I default to reasonability > competing interpretations. In public forum there aren't a lot of reasons for the competing interpretations, and at a certain point you just have to gut check. I would vote on competing interpretations if you convince me why I should.

I vote on what is in the round, so if you don't say it, I don't weigh it. If you think "I should just know" something don't assume that say it. Please weigh in summary and final focus, and it's even better if you set it up in earlier speeches.

I was a policy debater, so the idea of an RVI is really silly to me, RVIs are bad and it's not a reason to vote for you if there was a genuine violation.

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

I will disclose and give a RFD after the round if you ask me to. I generally don't give high speaker points, a 30 would have to be basically perfect.

Have fun!!!

Charlie Synn Canyon Crest Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:26 PM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Tiffany Tang Northeast Independent 3 rounds

Kate Totz The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Kien Tran Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 10:22 AM CDT

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

Ria Vasishtha Lexington HS 6 rounds

Christian Vasquez The Blake School 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 2:46 PM CDT

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Ke Wang Middleton 3 rounds

Minfen Wang East Ridge High School 3 rounds

Jaedri Wood Skyline 6 rounds

Alan Yang Lexington HS 6 rounds

Janet Zhang River Hill High School 3 rounds

Qi Zhang Interlake HS 5 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Mid America Cup

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges