Hi middle schoolers! I'm Chloe and I mainly compete in LD, but I'm familiar with PF and BQ, as well as extemp and other speaking events. The topic you're competing today was a topic I debated earlier this year, so I'm familiar with the arguments and values/criterions/definitions on both sides.

Here are some things that I look for in all debate rounds:

1. Sportsmanship: Be respectful. Debate is not a place where you can attack your opponent personally. Any obvious disrespect will guarantee you and your team the loss.
2. Spreading: if I can't understand you, I can't flow. If I don't understand your argument, I can't take it into consideration when making my final decision. Having a few quality arguments is more impactful than having 8-9 different arguments that I can barely understand. Please speak at a speed where your judges and opponents can understand you.
3. Time: Try not to go under/over by more than 10 seconds, but I'm not strict and it won't be a major factor on why you win or lose a round.
4. Sources: Again, I know this topic, and I'll probably have an idea if your evidence is fabricated. I also weigh logic/impacts more than evidence, so take that into account. You don't really need citations at the end of every sentence (ex. Johnson, 23). Actually, please don't.
5. Cross: I won't flow cross, so please bring up any arguments you want me to weigh from cross in your later speeches. You can cut each other off if necessary, but don't abuse it.
6. Final Aff Speech: No new arguments. I won't flow them. It's against the rules and unfair to your opponents who aren't able to respond.
7. Voters: Not necessary, but helpful in making a final decision at the end of a close round
8. Standing up, eye contact, and good volume are all characteristics of a confident debater.

Here are some things I look for in LD rounds:

1. Progressive: Make sure you know what you're doing. Don't run kritiks unless you can explain it in lay terms. Don't run a case you don't understand. If your opponent doesn't know what you're arguing, they can't properly rebuttal.
2. Value: LD is a value debate. I know that this topic generally has the same value for both aff/neg, so my decision will weigh heavily on which side better upholds that value. Carry your value through each contention and speech.
3. Criterion: I'll weigh criterion if you uphold it throughout the round. I'll drop it if you do as well.

Here are some things I look for in speech:

1. Confidence is key - speeches are persuasive and appeal to the audience when delivered with confidence. Good posture, good volume, minimal stuttering, and slowing down are all aspects of confident speakers.
2. Believe what you say - make your information engaging
3. Extemp should have one source per point, preferred two. There'll be a 30 second grace period either side, and those will help weigh heavily in rankings.
4. Don't say sorry if you mess up - just keep going

My email is chloeekchen@gmail.com if you guys have any questions about debate/ballots. Good luck and have fun :)

Email: ddagar1039@gmail.com

Tech over truth

Debated for 3 years, 2 years on Utah middle school circuit LD, one year HS PF. I went 10th in PF and 2nd in impromptu at state. 2022-2024

I teach the middle schoolers at my school how to debate, so I know what a good round looks like.

I've judged for several middle school tournaments before, so I do know how to write a good ballot.

Debate:

I vote on fallacies. They are the number one thing I vote on. I want you to use fallacies in the rounds because that is what TRUE debate is and that is how to be a TRUE debater.

I competed in a few policy tournaments in middle school, so I know how policy rounds should go. I'm fine with spreading, just send me the doc on the email above, I can't decipher your spreading and write a good ballot at the same time. I would rather you be clear than fast. As a judge, I like clear link chains and impact debates, source debate is fine, but it most likely won't be the reason you win, so don't waste time on it. If you make me laugh, +1 speaker points. In cross-x, you can be aggressive, but don't be abusive, it ruins the debate. Weigh your impacts, they're one of the biggest things I vote on. Signpost and go down the flow, I will follow you but don't make it hard for me. If your arguments are abusive, I won't vote on them. If your only way of winning is through abusive arguments, you don't deserve to win.

LD specifically:

Extend your framework and impacts.

If you go overtime, I give a 15-second grace period, try not to go over it. I won't give you the loss for it, but I will decrease your speaker points.

Speaker points:

25> You were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just plain mean.

25.1 - 26.9: You weren't understandable and made the debate hard for me (and my flow) to follow.

27 - 27.9: You're doing well but need some work.

28 - 28.9: Top half and you are doing well

29 - 30: Good job!

Debate:

DO NOT SPEAK AT A RATE I CAN NOT TAKE NOTES!!! If you do I will put my pencil down and wish you luck.

I would highly appreciate off time road maps. I understand staying organized is a challenge but it will help me and your competitor. As a debater I love to see friendly competition and I don't mind heated cross as long as it stays cordial. I do not flow cross so just bring it up in a speech if you want me to even acknowledge the impact of said question. As of speaking you are going on the fly so as long as you don't stutter like a maniac good speaker points are coming your way.

Speech:

Be original

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

That said, I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I might as well sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do.

On Critical Debate:

I love a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF:If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? How do I fill out this stupid ballot? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy. My feeling on plans is that they are usually not necessary and only invite topicality issues that can't be easily resolved because this format doesn't allow for topicality arguments, so don't run them!

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

I ASK FOR YOU TO SPEAK AT A RATE THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU

Please do not spread (speak faster than me and your opponent can understand). I do not flow cross examination. If you win an argument in cross you must bring it up in a later speech for me to weigh it. Your impacts must be backed with evidence, as well as being logical and they need to make sense.

West '27

Congress and PF Debater

National Semi Finalist Congress

Email chain: streimsutton@gmail.com

Title the subject of the email chains: [Tournament Name] [Round Number] AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]

Destroyer of novice spirits

I have my most experience in Congress, LD, PF and Extemp but at this point I've done 90% of them whether interesting or not

4th year of debate

My highly biased opinion > tech > truth (I'm kidding I swear)

Conflict with West High School SLC

Don't troll my round or I will troll your ranked games.

If you don't make an ignorantly offensive comment +.2 speaks

Point Scale:

<27 - You said something unethical

27.1-27.9 - 0/6-1/5 bracket

28-28.5 - 2/4-3/3 bracket

28.6-29 - 4/2 bracket, you might break

29.1-29.5 - 5/1 or better, you're in

29.6-29.8 - Deep elims run is looking likely

29.9-30 - You've won

LD Stuff:

I am a fairly experienced LDer, my main voters are: Well interpreted evidence, don't cite evidence if it's just cherrypicked or misinterpreted evidence is one of my least favorite things, I'd rather a substantiated point without evidence than one with a lot of bad evidence, just because you have a lot of evidence, doesn't mean you win. Turns, a strong turn means a win 90% of the time, just don't wait until a 2AC to do it. I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY dislike T and will generally lose them unless it's clearly proven. In Utah, you do not have to share cases, do not make a T argument about it, however, if you agree to share cases, add me to the email chain or speechdrop. Don't abuse your opponent (I.E, don't think debate lingo gives a free win.) And finally, I vote on frame a majority of the time, show good links and back it up. Signpost and run down the flow, make sure you tell me why you win.

CX Stuff:

Spread to your own ability, if you do, make sure you're clear. I vote on impact weight for both sides and CP solvency for Aff plan impact. I understand policy jargon, new to policy debate but I know how to judge and have judged it before.

PF Stuff:

Similar to LD, use your 1AR/1NR well, it's one of the most important aspects in PF. Pay attention to everything your opponents say, if they say it, you can find a way to refute it. Please don't be racist, I've ran in to too many racist PFers in this state.

I.E Stuff:

Make sure your speech is memorized and topic is original. Back up your claims and try to make me laugh. I don't vote on my own opinion unless you say something offensive in which case, automatic 6th. Don't go over time if possible, 30 seconds grace.

Congress Stuff:

Now here's my thing, I'd prefer you made your speeches extemp style, I generally dislike pre-written speeches however, they're not terrible but I hope you can avoid them. Don't abuse motions or POIs, it's boring and wastes time, clarify yourself on the rules of congress, they change surprisingly frequently. Don't yell or be rude, it's BEYOND annoying and will affect your placement. Always decline motions to suspend the rules, this is not allowed, this includes extending questioning. Clarify whether you run an open chamber or not, thanks POs. Objections are stupid, it's abuse of time and I'd prefer you would not

Random Stuff:

Troll args can be really funny but you have to place it right, Congress, Extemp and sometimes Policy are the best places for it.