IDC JVNovice State Tournament
2024 — Belleville, IL/US
JV Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a high school civics teacher who is relatively new to debate. My judging experience is limited, but I consider myself to be well informed in evaluating student work. As a judge, I expect debate participants to be respectful and I do not tolerate discriminatory, hateful, harmful, or profane language. I will allow cross examination to go a few seconds over time if there is an important question and answer that needs to play out. Clarity in an argument is more important to me than speed. While I recognize the importance of debate as a competition, I highly value the learning experience it presents for students.
Loreto Galvan-Alva
As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!
1. Tech Over Truth
- Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
- Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
- Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)
2. Flexibility in Close Rounds
- While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
- Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)
3. Fairness and Behavior
- I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
- Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
- Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)
So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!
*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*
For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.
Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)
My fundamental principles:.
-
It’s not an argument without a warrant.
-
'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
- ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real
-
Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
-
Judge intervention is usually bad.
view of a PF round:
-
Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
-
Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
-
Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
-
Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
-
Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
-
If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
-
You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.
- Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
- Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.
Judging style:
-
I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
-
weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus
-
It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
-
Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense
- Miscellaneous Stuff
-
Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there
-
Have preflows ready
-
open cross is fine
-
Flex prep is fine
-
K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.
-
I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory
-
I don't care where you speak from
-
I don't care what you wear
I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.
I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.
Hi all, I'm a 4 year high school PFer turned college parli debater. My pronouns are he/him. Email is yaseenmozaffar@gmail.com if you have any questions at any point.
I'm a pretty straightforward tech-over-truth flow judge. For Public Forum, I judge off the flow by directly comparing whatever impacts each team has extended through summary and final focus. If you tell me how to weigh one of your arguments against one of your opponents', I'll weigh it that way. If you don't tell me how to weigh, I'll end up just having to make a judgment call and/or draw inferences based on the rest of the arguments on the flow. I don't want to have to do that, and you definitely don't want me to have to do that, so put a lot of care into your weighing analysis in the back half of the debate. I don't flow crossfire, but I pay attention to it, and I'll flow arguments that reference cross IF they're brought up in later speeches. Past that, I'm supremely flexible with just about everything, as long as it's okay with the others in the round. At the end of the day this is your round, not mine. **no spreading in PF**
On speaker points: I don't have a formula for speaker points because there's no one way to be a "good" speaker. I award speaks based on both presentation and strategic effectiveness in speeches, as well as presence in cross.
Finally, do your best to avoid acting like a bad person. I understand that this is a high-tension activity, especially when stakes are high, but be sure to keep yourself in check before being disrespectful, hateful, or otherwise mean-spirited. We're all human beings before we're debaters, and it's important to me that we all remember that everyone has a place in this activity.
Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!
My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.
In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.
Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).
Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.
Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).
I am a former varsity second speaker in public forum debate. I debated all 4 years of high schools, did national circuit and local, was an octofinalist at IHSA, qualified for nationals, and have coached at a pf debate camp.
When evaluating the round it will come down to two main things
1: the flow. What is clean and presented to me, I'm tech over truth. With this being said, the easiest way to make sure your arguments are clean is to make sure you and/or (depending on if you're speaking first or second) your partner frontline.
2: Weighing. The back half of the round should be primarily focused on collapsing (picking an argument) and weighing. If you don't pick an argument and compare the impacts in the round with weighing, the round is gross at that point. Tell my why your argument matters more. If this isn't done I have no way to actually vote in the round and am left to search through my flow to find something to vote on. Don't make me search, do the work for me.
Show respect for your opponents for the round, you are all doing the same thing here, there isn't any reason to be disrespectful. I will take speaker points off for disrespect if it occurs.
With that being said sarcastic and joking debate is fun as long as it doesn't go too far, I respect it more in the varsity level rather than novice and jv.
Evidence disputes are fine, but don't make it a main issue. If there is a piece of evidence in question in the round, I'll look at it and decide if it falls anywhere in the round. If you spend over 3 minutes debating over a piece of evidence (It says this no it says this), I am dropping the evidence. It's a wash at that point, you are wasting too much time when you could be working, developing, and debating all other points in the round.
After the round if the tournament allows I will disclose, if you want to ask questions and post round me, fine do so, but it won't change my decision and if you are disrespectful, I will contact your coach.
Have fun and Good luck!