Tabroom.com

Spring Cup

2024 — NSDA Campus, US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Akshay Agarwal The Golden State Academy

Yupeng An The Golden State Academy None

Vansh Angi Winston Churchill

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 12:38 AM PDT

TLDR: If you read interesting contentions that aren't just a stretch of barely connected links you’ll strongly sway me towards higher speaks

send docs and marked docs before and after speeches (if going fast)

No doc and fast speeches mean I flow what I can hear, don't do this

I don't have much topic knowledge on the PF topic, go slow on tags, don't use acronyms, signpost and give me offtime roadmaps
Slow down on any analytics, rebuttals/summary/final focuses can be fast but intelligible, again, if you have messy and fast speaking I will flow what I can hear
I don't understand any PF specific arguments or norms - Err on overexplanation and warranting (ie why some norm isnt allowed in pf - I have no idea about existing norms)

About me:

Previously debated in Policy Debate, with some experience judging PF in practice debates, though I haven’t judged on tab before you can treat me as a tech or a lay. I'm going to be honest, I don't really care what kind of debate you go for, just decide with your opponents if you want to be fast or slow, tech debate or substance, but if you decide on any accommodations with your opponents that you want to make sure I know you have agreed on, let me know before the round.

Email: Add vanshu.angi@gmail.com

My default is Tech>>>Truth. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it has warranted and explained. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half.

On speed, refer to what I said above, policy debate was always spreading oriented but ngl that always annoyed me, especially when cards were read that weren’t sent. Please send cards and maintain clarity.

On substance debate, I will hear any contention out, but remember, the second you stop extending an impact in summary/ff its gone on my flow, similarly as soon as you stop responding to the oppositions links, impacts, whatever, as long as they extend it they win it. This flows the other way too, my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, intricate/detailed weighing is the best way to win my ballot. Personally I ran many extinction impacts but also love the sense of reality that comes with s-risks and structural violence impacts. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

When it comes to turns, the only way I vote on it is explained proof that your link is better than theirs
Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, creativity/internal links make the debate interesting (another step towards the 30)

Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.
I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.
Definition debate, solvency args, empirics might be boring but they are a really good technical way to get my ballot
Confidence is key in cross and i'm going to default to binding cross unless you tell me why its better to be non-binding
15 seconds grace, but if its every speech i'm gonna stop listening and flowing after the speech time ends

Also none of the following matters for MS or for Novice/JV, i'm gonna draw a hard line here, if you aren’t in Varsity, running theory, K, tricks etc is a real stretch, at that point i'm going to say go to Varsity if you want to do that, don't be THAT team.

Theory: Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K: My thoughts on the K. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a role of the ballot. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative’ is.

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

Aanya Baddela Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 9:55 AM EDT

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I've been doing public forum debate for roughly 6 years under Ivy Bridge and Lambert, made some deep elim rounds

General Preferences:

1 - Come pre flowed unless we're flipping before round

2 - Give off time roadmaps (a simple "my case, their case, weighing" will do fine)

3 - Signpost in speech

4 - Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5 - Send speech docs if you're planning on spreading

6 - Don't prep while you exchange cards

Case:

1 - Logical warrants > evidence dumps

2 - Don't misrepresent evidence

3 - I love framework debates, but don't read it unless you know how

Rebuttal:

1 - Implicate every response, especially turns

2 - I only evaluate turns when you a) extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b) weigh it

3 - Frontline

Summary:

1 - Collapse

2 - Resolve the weighing debate by a) reading comparative weighing and b) responding to the opponents weighing if you're 2nd summary

Final Focus:

1 - I don't evaluate anything new in final focus unless it was in grand cross

2 - This is a personal preference but please, please, please don't just repeat summary - final focus is supposed to blow up the reasons why you win, not just go over the round like summary does

Speaker Point Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You get speaks if you:

1 - were funny

2 - did a line by line in rebuttal

3 - used final focus to explain why you won instead of just repeating summary

4 - had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You lose speaks if you:

1 - were rude in cross by speaking over the other team or interrupting them a lot

2 - brought up a lot of new things in final focus (if it's just some new things I won't dock speaks but I also won't flow it)

3 - were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

4 - misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

Francis Baltasar Winston Churchill

Leena Basnyet Pembroke Pines Charter High School

Layla Bello-Santos IN-Tech Academy, MS/HS 368x None

Spencer Chaisanguanthum Hire None

Aaron Chen The King's Academy Middle School

Arun Chintam Winston Churchill None

Aidan Chiu The King's Academy Middle School

Aaron Choi Hire

David Coates Hire

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

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David De Le Hire

Terrance Dsilva Matthew Munchkin Academy

Hailey Espinales-Fernandez IN-Tech Academy, MS/HS 368x

Swati Gandhi Winston Churchill None

Lawrence Golden Hire

Obiora Goodluck Hire

sasidhar gundimeda Winston Churchill

Pramod Joisha Joaquin Miller Middle School

ragasudha kathireddy The Golden State Academy None

Amit Khanna Potomac Debate Academy

Thulani Khumalo Hire

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 10:25 AM CDT

This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: khumalothulani.r@gmail.com

What is my experience level?

Here are my judging qualifications:

2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA

2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA

You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):

I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).

2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?

I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.

Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).

33. How do I take notes during the round?

I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.

4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?

Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.

45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?

1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.

2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.

3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.

4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.

56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?

Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.

67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?

In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.

78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.

89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.

Cheers!

Yanyan Liu Potomac Debate Academy

Dylan McEntyre Potomac Debate Academy

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.

Benjamin Minaya IN-Tech Academy, MS/HS 368x

Micheal Oliver Hire

Jinho Park Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Anna Pham Brooks Debate Institute

Pradeep Pithumani Winston Churchill

ALI PORBAHA Winston Churchill

Pranav Pradeep Hire None

Leslie Ruiz IN-Tech Academy, MS/HS 368x None

Imad Shaikh Hire

Rudri Soni Hire

Matthew St-Germain Hire

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Zhihui Sun Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Catherine Terrace Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:42 AM CDT

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Jie Tong Winston Churchill

Jeramy Vazquez IN-Tech Academy, MS/HS 368x None

Annie Wu Brooks Debate Institute None

Alfred Yeung Joaquin Miller Middle School

Login to Tabroom

Spring Cup

2024 — NSDA Campus, US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

Judges