9th Annual Middle School Tournament of Champions
2025 — NSDA Campus, KY/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAbout me: Hi, I’m Ali Barodawala, a Senior MD at Charles Schwab. I'm really excited to be here and participate in the Public Forum debate process. That being said, I have 20 years of a professional work experience in multi national firms and have been part of various speaker sessions and presentations, so I do have certain expectations and standards I would like to see:
Basic: Tech >(=) truth, tabula rasa. I'm fine if you run out-of-pocket arguments, just warrant them well. I am NOT going to vote off of a terrible link or bad evidence ethics.
DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. If you want me to evaluate something in final, it should be extended throughout round. Please extend at least your links and impacts, otherwise I have to consider if I’m voting off a ghost argument.
I will not refrain from looking confused if you don’t make sense. Use my body language if you need a cue as to how you are doing.
Details:
-
I want good links and good evidence. I do not like voting on arguments with weird or hazy links, fake impacts, or badly cut evidence. If you get called out off this in round, I will definitely take that response highly into account.
-
When you frontline, I prefer line-by-line, but if you have a strategy for response grouping and execute it well, I’m definitely good with it.
-
Please signpost. I’ve had to flip my paper over 5-6 times a speech frantically searching for what you’re talking about before, and I don’t like it one bit. PLEASE tell me where you are and offtime roadmaps are nice. Number responses too please (On their C1, 1. … 2. …)
-
Please extend whatever you want me to evaluate in FF in prior speeches. If you have this a strong arg that instantly wins you the round but you drop it in summary, I am NOT going to evaluate it.
-
Frontline in 2nd Rebuttal please. You don’t want terminal offense/defense getting left behind in summary.
-
I have no notions about the topic. Don’t worry about bias
Overall, have fun and learn from these experiences. Maintain what debate is meant to be at its core - a form of education. Good luck!
I will look for strong posture, a clear voice, and an engaging presence matter. Frame your arguments comellingly and not just technically. Have solid evidence and engage directly with your opponents and why your impact matters more. Be persuasive and accessible. Convince me, don't just inform me.
I am new to judging , would appreciate if participants can talk at a slower pace and time each other.
Speaker Points:
I will most likely give you a 28-30 if you:
- Speak loudly and clearly, no "spreading" please, the slower you speak the easier it will be for me to comprehend your arguments so please do not speak too fast
- Be polite to your opponent, if you mock/insult/rudely interrupt your opponent, you will lost speaker points. During cross-ex please try to be as polite as possible and do not get too aggressive
- Explain arguments properly, when explaining your arguments to clearly tell me where you are on the flow and explain terms such as "turn" and "non-unique"
Appearance: While it will not influence my decision, please respect the tournaments dress code and wear appropriate clothing.
Decisions: I will most likely vote for the team that best explains and extends their warrants and impacts. Please throughly explain why your impact matters and why we should solve for it as it makes my decision much easier.
Use of evidence: I highly value evidence and believe most of not all of your claims should have evidence to back it up. If you believe your opponents evidence is not credible please throughly explain why.
Debate skill and truthful argument: While a value a truthful argument over debate skill, presentation will impact my decision. If you do not seem confident in your argument it will make me feel the same way.
I’m a relatively new judge and this is my first year, and my goal is to foster an engaging, fair, and educational debate experience. I believe debate is about clear argumentation, logical persuasion, and critical thinking. I approach each round open-mindedly, focusing on the arguments presented rather than personal beliefs. I prefer a medium pace—clarity is key. If I can’t flow it, I can’t evaluate it.Speed is acceptable as long as you maintain clarity, but if you go too fast, I may miss key arguments.
Rajanarsimham Kummariguntla:
I am a lay judge with little experience. I prefer arguments with clear links. Over warrant everything. If I don't understand it I'm not interpreting it. DON'T run extinction impacts with very little probability. Also don't read fast please.
Kegan Rinard
Hi ya’ll
My name is Kegan Rinard and I am the debate coach for Mingdao High School in Taichung City, Taiwan. I was a former NSDA member in high school, and participated in the Forensic League National Championships, and formerly coached Asian Parliamentary Debate in Korea within the YTN circuit for two years, but now my main focus as a coach is Public Forum.
Overview
My biggest advice to all debaters is organization and structure when approaching your argumentations, contentions, rebuttals, summary, crossfire, and final focus. If you are unable to understand or organize your thoughts, it will be difficult for me to understand as well.
Public Forum
In terms of my preferences, I like to take the more traditional approach to debate. While I believe that the technical aspect and “flowing” is incredibly important in an event setting, one of the main purposes behind debate is being able to have a civil discourse concerning a complicated (and often very nuanced) topic, and am more partial to how a team strategically approaches their side, and their ability to provide strong contentions, good rebuttals, and able to properly “crystallize” their final thoughts on the matter.
Here, I will break down the different aspects and my preferences:
Contentions
While I am experienced in speeding and actively listening while flowing, I would encourage you to not speed and be able to speak clearly and transparently. You may have great contentions and evidence, but if I cannot understand you clearly, then that takes away from the whole public speaking aspect behind debate. However, with that being said, I am speaking mostly to those that are more “green” in a competitive environment. Veterans can feel free to speed if they feel confident in the fact that they can be clear and articulate, as I’m sure you have a lot of information in your contentions.
Flowing
As I mentioned in my general overview, I will be flowing and following a roadmap in order to effectively gauge the different points made by each team during the debate, but I won’t ask for your flow notes. This is more for me to see who is properly addressing contentions, refutations, and the accuracy and transparency of each debater within the round, and to ensure that I have a visual representation of each team’s argument so that I can judge as effectively and objectively as possible.
Decorum
Something that I find intolerable is rudeness and aggressiveness, and lack of professionalism during a round. When in a round, you can be assertive, and typically, those that adhere to a more proactive approach in a debate round (as opposed to a defensive approach) are more likely to win my ballot. With that being said, talking over one another, being insulting or dismissive of the opposing team, ridiculing them (even when you're not directly competing against them) will likely result in you losing speaking points.
Also, each team will have good evidence and reliable sources, and one of the things that I have seen in less experienced debaters in order to win over the judge will state that the opposing team’s sources were not reliable or outright untrue (for example, watched a team state in the FF that the opposing team’s sources were not reliable when the source was in question was actually a direct quote from the UN charter). Pulling this tactic in order to look better in front of the judges is frowned upon in my eyes, and will result in losing speaking points as well.
Furthermore, any homophobic, transphobic, racially motivated, or insensitive remarks concerning a marginalized group of people will automatically result in a loss. Remember, before and during the round I am assessing your decorum and how you conduct yourself. Also, ensure that you provide a safe and accessible space for your competitors. All too often, I’ve seen competitive drive take the place of sportsmanship, and competition fosters excellence, but not to the point of toxicity.
TLDR version: Be kind and sportsmanlike to each other and you’ll be fine.
Debate Theory
Personally, I am not a huge fan of debate theory in terms of pre-fiat, fiat, and post-fiat and it is not necessarily done well in PF, especially with less experienced debaters. What I would like to see is how well you do with the fundamentals in terms of your contentions, crossfire, refutations (structural or substantive), and being able to summarize your argument, and determine the magnitude x probability “weigh” between the two frameworks established in the round and why your team wins that “weigh”.
Biggest questions to answer:
1. Where am I voting?
2. How can I vote for you there?
3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?
Veterans vs. Newbies
If you are newer to a competition setting, then I am going to be more facilitating in terms of guiding you through the process if you’re having trouble, but I won’t be able to do the work for you. You will need to keep track of your own time, as I will be taking down the time as well. Feel free to ask me any questions before the debate if you want me to clarify anything regarding my preferences. For veteran/older debaters, I’ll be more stringent in terms of how you approach your time management, roles, and structure regarding your roles and the technical aspects.
Primarily did Policy but judge/coach it all so be as progressive as you'd like. Also please stop asking me if I'm okay with speed- you will be fine you will not read too fast for me.
more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW
STOP RUNNING YOUR CRITERION / FW AS MAXIMIZING WELLBEING IF YOUR JUSTIFICATIONS ARE ALL CITING UTIL- JUST BE UTIL or run better justifications that actually apply to MXB and NOT util THEY ARE DIFFERENT you COWARDS.
I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about and can actually explain it- dont assume your judge knows your super specific k aff/criterion.
Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.
If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.
If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.
Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one
If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it
more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW
Occupation: Software Development
School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School
Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech
Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.
- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.
I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.
How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):
Clothing/Appearance: 1
Use of Evidence: 10
Real World Impacts: 10
Cross Ex: 5
Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5
Help me evaluate the round:
A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.
HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!
Jonathan Tao, jonathantao.2005@gmail.com
2nd Year Undergrad @ UW, 4 years PF experience in HS on local & nat circ, quite rusty (I'm washed), count me as flay-lay
TLDR:
-I have MINIMAL topic knowledge, take that as you will
-Don't spread, spreading = instant minimum speaks (no, sending a speech doc doesn't work, do policy)
-If you think you're speaking too fast, you probably are
-Theory/K's/Progressive = drop unless there is a LEGITIMATE violation that must be addressed (See below for legitimate violations), I never debated prog and don't really understand it
-Blatant and Intentional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia or other discrimination/egregious behavior = instant drop
-Tabula Rasa, run anything that makes sense and maybe something that doesn't :D
-Google Docs & Email Chain both work, but I prefer Docs
-Have fun, don't take or make anything personal
-Any questions abt paradigm or something not on it, please ask before round, I'll do my best to answer
------
On Substance:
-Dropped Arguments should to be mentioned to be dropped, else I'll still entertain it
-Clash is nice, interact with their arguments
-Devote some time to weighing plz
On Evidence:
-Unless something is critical to the debate and heavily disputed I will not ask to see it, if you say I should discount it you better have a decent warrant
On Timing:
-I'll keep time, but am inclined to give grace periods, don't exploit it. I reserve the right to drop speaks and tell yall to get on with it
(If you sing a duet after FF +5 Speaks & I will be very impressed)
(***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***)
As a PF coach and experienced judge, I take a tabula rasa approach, meaning I come into each round with a neutral mindset and allow the debaters to set the framework and define the lens through which the round should be evaluated. I do not impose personal preferences or biases but expect debaters to clearly explain how I should weigh their arguments.
I am a flow judge, so organization is key. I will carefully track arguments throughout the round, and I expect debaters to do the same, responding to key points rather than letting important issues drop. Clear, strategic extension of arguments in summary and final focus is critical.
Impact weighing is a priority for me. I appreciate when teams explain why their impacts are more significant in the context of the round, especially in the summary and final focus. Effective comparison of impacts will help me make my decision.
I value clarity and accessibility in argumentation. Public Forum should remain understandable, so I prefer well-structured, logical arguments that are free of excessive jargon. Debaters should explain complex ideas in a way that’s digestible without sacrificing depth.
I give weight to evidence-based arguments, but simply presenting evidence isn’t enough. Debaters should tie their evidence back to their broader narrative and explain its relevance. I also appreciate when teams challenge the quality or relevance of their opponents’ evidence in a meaningful way.
Finally, communication matters. Strong delivery, clear articulation, and persuasive speaking make a big difference. Debaters who can engage with me through confident, effective communication and adapt to the flow of the round stand out.
Debated NDT-CEDA at Gonzaga 2021-2024 and am currently coaching at Niles West High School.
TLDR
Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com
Time yourself and time your opponents
I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable
Impact calc wins rounds
speed is good but outside of policy it's cringe
Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)
I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent
Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time
Judge instruction please
T
Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untopical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.
Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn you're winning
Limits is a very convincing argument for me - I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad
FW
I have read both policy and K affs
Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool
Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool
K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good and start from adeficit
I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.
At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.
Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .
Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).
Fairness is always good
Debate is a game- I am severely not convinced by "no it isn't, debate is my life" - it is inarguably a game to an extent and everyone chose to come play it. Unlimited other places to advocate for X literature means no reason debate is unique.
Theory
Theory is good.
If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument - why is x thing utopian?
If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate
I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much
Will vote on perf con
Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm
Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in
If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument
K
Cool with a 1 off and case strat
Kritiks are cool
Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)
Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things
Pull out CX moments / sketchy 1AC decisions and EXTEND them as specific links
I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)
Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.
Apply arguments please - K debate is becoming increasingly broad (ie. if I win my theory of power I should win the debate) which I don't disagree with but it does mean specificity in argument application is more and more important. Tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you are making and which of the arguments your opponents made are implicated.
CP
CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.
2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit
Advantage CP defender
Probably should be functionally and textually competitive ig
DA
DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic
UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading
Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy
PF
I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.
Will vote on theory
Cool with K stuff
LD
Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!
Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com
Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.
I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.