Almonte,+David

Poly Prep Country Day School ‘16, Emory University ‘20

Conflicts: Poly Prep Country Day School

I debated Public Forum for Poly Prep in New York, where I was relatively successful.

PUBLIC FORUM PF ROUND FLOW PF ARGUMENTS LINCOLN DOUGLASS
 * I'm your run of the mill judge. To win my ballot, you must warrant well, crystallize and weigh.
 * I can flow pretty well. I'm fine with speed, as long as you don't sacrifice articulation. My threshold for speed is perhaps a bit faster than the pacing of this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
 * Your speaks will benefit from the use of strong rhetoric and humor.
 * The second rebuttal has an **obligation** to respond to **all offense** on the flow. Preferably, the second speaking team should respond to terminal defense and overviews as well.
 * If you are the first summary speaker, please don't waste any time extending defensive responses from your rebuttal; instead, spend time defending your case (if necessary). It is still your obligation to respond to offensive arguments made in the second rebuttal.
 * I solemnly swear that I will never vote off an argument that does not appear in summary. If a turn is read in the rebuttal but is not extended in summary, it will be considered a defensive argument that nullifies the offense of the argument it responds to.
 * Don't extend through ink. If it appears that you are extending an argument without acknowledging the response(s), I'm unlikely to flow it at all.
 * All speeches for each side should resemble the others. Summary and final focus should be roughly **parallel**.
 * I am much more likely to vote off of an argument that has been comprehensively **collapsed** on than a blippy extension.
 * I will rarely write **author names** on my flow. It is your duty as a debater to explain and extend your arguments for me. I will not simply accept the author's authority as fact; your evidence needs to be as well warranted as any analytic argument.
 * Winning arguments alone does not win you the round. Go the extra mile in final focus and explain to me why the fact that you've won the arguments you've won wins you the round. The use of ballot language is helpful and persuasive, so don't shy away from it.
 * Defensive arguments are never a reason to affirm. On some resolutions, if neither team provides me with offensive arguments at the end of the round, I'll default neg if I believe that the affirmative has not met its burden to prove the resolution true. Win offense (even a risk of offense), or don't win.
 * **Advocacies, Plans and Fiat Power In PF.** I'll quote my wonderful public forum partner Caspar Arbeeny on this one: "I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 22nd-century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. **If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove rock-solid inherency.** In an ideal world, that means three things. First, you show that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we need more houses at all). Second, you must demonstrate that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the House floor). Finally, you need to prove some historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not buy the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter two can be made up by strengthening the other. **Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution."**
 * **Theory.** I don't require theory arguments to be in shell form with subpoints; nevertheless, I prefer to have all of the components of a theory shell on the flow in some form. I think that theory can be a double-edged sword; it can be used to reduce and disincentivise abuse, but frivolously used theory can be counterproductive to the educational and equitable goals of debate. Make sure that the violation is clearly articulated and explicitly checked for. I hold theory arguments to the same standards I hold all other arguments; if you want me to vote on it, you'll need to do a degree of collapsing on it and you'll need to weigh the abuse in the context of the round.
 * **Speed.** See above.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Jargon.** Please don’t assume that I understand jargon, as well as you might, especially if that jargon is arcane and tailored towards critical debate or super nuanced theory. Generally, any jargon that doesn’t appear here (http://www.debateteamdocumentary.com/resourcesfolder/dtddictionary.html) will fly right over my head.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory.** See above.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Tricks.** Read at your own risk; I prefer substance over subterfuge. If your argument's functions are clear in the first speech, I’m much more likely to vote off of it.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Phil/FW.** I might not be as familiar with the authors as some of your other judges might be. That puts the onus on you to thoroughly explain the rationale behind your framework/philosophy.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical arguments.** I’ll look at these like any other argument. They need to be substantive, well grounded, well impacted, and weighed. Simply screaming –isms at me is unlikely to be persuasive.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Flashing, prep, speech docs.** If you're flight b, please try to flash the aff before the round starts. I will not read along with your speech doc during your speech. I should be able to flow your speaking.