PF Coach at Delbarton

Tech > truth

was pretty good at Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart (3x toc qual, 4x tfa qual) now im a junior at Northeastern

speed is cool but i wont flow off doc (if u make me i will be sad)

pls read cut cards

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add brookekb1@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog is cool (but i prefer substance unless something egregious happens)

what i have run + teach students to run (extremely comfortable)

- disclo, paraphrasing, cut card theory

- identity kritiks (topical and non topical)

- language kritiks/ivis

- securitization/other topical ks

what i know **but dont have enough knowledge over to comfortably run myself

- baudrillard, afro pes

dont read

- triks

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com- This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

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

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

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

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

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

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Currently a speech coach and assistant director at Delbarton, I am a former policy debater. I follow PF closely, and track developments on the circuit by regularly spectating varsity rounds when not judging speech. Further, I work with my team on formulating quality K arguments.

Offense vs. Defense: Offense is prioritized over defense, requiring thorough extensions, frontlining, and weighing. Winning with purely defensive arguments will be challenging. In other words, if I am voting on a turn, it needs to follow the same structure as a contention—claim, warrant, impact. It should not be a blip.

Speed and Clarity: I’ll do my best to keep up with your pace, but please remain clear; if clarity is lacking, flowing your arguments becomes difficult.

Speech Guidelines:
- The second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal’s points.
- Arguments in Final Focus should generally also appear in Summary, with proper extensions and frontlining. New weighing in Final Focus is allowed but should be relevant and responsive; avoid loading it all in the final speech.

Comparative Weighing: Please use comparative weighing for links and impacts, focusing on elements like timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Note that link clarity and impact strength are critical.

Argument Scope: I’ll consider most arguments and come prepared with background knowledge on the topic (“tech over truth”). However, I’ll vote down arguments that include blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, or fabricated evidence.

Accommodations and Crossfire: I am open to making accommodations for debaters—just ask beforehand. And remember, crossfire exchanges should be civil; there’s no need for excessive intensity. Keep your crossfire balanced. If it feels like you're hogging the crossfire, you probably are.

N.B. While I recognize that PF is as much a studied game of strategy as anything else, running a K that your opposing team is ill-qualified to handle is not a winning strategy—it’s the enemy of genuine clash, and therefore, the enemy of quality debate. I will vote you down every time.

Email: jcorcoran@delbarton.org

TLDR: Tech judge who usually judges PF. Run whatever you want - I will vote off of the flow. I will and have voted off of ks and theory but you probably need to explain ks to me like I'm five. I have topic knowledge (in PF). Be clear. Weigh.

add BOTH emails to the email chain: adamlevin71@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

PF

-Be nice but assertive in cross - I don’t flow cross but concessions are binding.

-EXTEND CASE in summary and final focus or I can't vote on it. If I can't vote on case I will find something random to vote on and chances are you won't like it—frontline case in 2nd rebuttal.

-Weighing should be in summary if it's going to be in final. I will vote off of weighing in first final if I have no other choice but I would prefer not to. Please make sure your weighing is comparative - don't just throw numbers at me and call it weighing.

- Good luck and have fun! Run creative arguments.

Theory

-Don't violate your own interp, especially if you're the theory-introducing team - I probably will intervene

-Weigh your standards please, I'm begging you

-Run friv theory, I don't care, just do it well

-I'll vote off of disclosure and anti-disclosure shells, same with paraphrasing, I don't have a preferred norm so just tell me which way to vote

Tricks

-Don't like them, probably the one thing I wouldn't run on me. I will still vote off of them, just make sure they have some sort of warrant.

LD

- Chances are the framework debate will not matter, if you're going to spend a lot of time on framework please explain why your argument links to your framework and why your opponent's doesn't. I don't care if you are winning the framework if you're not winning the arguments.

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI). I am separately conflicted against Jason Zhao from Strake Jesuit - he is a former Seven Lakes competitor.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. Currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes (TX), previously coached at Lakeville North/South (MN). I did NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college (like extemp policy) and PF/Congress in high school.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Usesevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine.

--

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

Hi, I am an experienced PF judge (since 2020) and will be a new to LD format starting in 2024.

Here is what I like for Debate:

Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

Please be professional to each other., and respect boundaries.

Please speak at a normal pace. If you are fast I will not be able to understand you and flow properly.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Hi I'm Franny (she/her) and I've debated in PF for Lake Highland for 5 years and now I'm a first year at harvard

Please add me to the email chain: lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com

I look to weighing for what offense to look to first.

extend case in summary and final and PLEASE read warrants.

defense is not sticky; if it's not in summary it better not be in your final

Don't be mean, racist, homophobic, sexist, islamophobic, exclusionary, etc.

I don't listen to cross so if you want me to know something important happened, bring it up in the next speech

signpost or I will be very sad (I also might miss stuff so do it for your own sake)

theory is ok but needs to be run well and some actual abuse needs to happen or I won't even bother evaluating

No K's, I don't know the lit and I'm not comfortable voting on them. If you really want to read a k, you need to hold my hand and explain everything to me and what I need to do with it

i presume to the team that lost the coinflip if I don't think there's any offense

If you have any questions feel free to ask :)))