Hello Debaters! 

MANNERS:

Please be respectful towards both me and your opponent. Stand up during speeches. 

I will not hesitate to drop you and tank your speaks if you say anything sexist homophobic or racist. 

SPEED:

Don't go too fast and speak clearly.

-----------------------------------------

I am fine with DA's,CP's, Underviews, etc. 

MAKE SURE TO EXTEND ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS/CARDS THROUGHOUT ALL SPEECHES. 

-----------------------------------------

LOOK AT ME DURING YOUR SPEECHES, INCLUDING CX. YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE ME, NOT YOUR OPPONENT. 

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

Brief Summary:

I went to La Salle and debated in LD for three years and debated in Policy when I was a senior. When I did LD I started out as a more traditional debater but became a bit more progressive through my career. And my time in Policy sorta desensitized me to atypical debate forms, meaning I will judge pretty much anything. I know that's not super helpful. 

Policy background means I love, and I mean love, good impact calc. Mainly, just focus on making well-warranted and impacted arguments, and proving why your impacts are more important than your opponent's. Also, don't be offensive. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, generally discriminatory, etc. rhetoric will probably make me vote you down. We're all here to enjoy debate and the education we're supposed to get from it. Don't ruin it with offensive shit. 

Also. I judge with the mindset of tech over truth. I only judge the arguments that are made in round. I won't infer arguments on behalf of you or your opponent, no matter how intuitive. If your opponent doesn't address an argument of yours, regardless of how ridiculous, I will assume that argument is true. That said, I hate voting for dumb things. So please, please, please address your opponent's arguments. 

Speed is fine. Clarity is more important than slowing down. If you spread, make sure you spread clearly and still sorta enunciate. If your spreading becomes a hum, I'll probably be irritated. Also, slow down for taglines. That shouldn't really need to be said. I'll say clear if you're being unclear. 

I don't flow cross-ex, but if you reference part of cross-ex in a subsequent speech it'll get you hella ethos in my book, so def use that. I prefer when cx is used strategically to undermine your opponent's position, but if you need to ask clarification questions that's fine too. Don't be rude though. You may disagree with your opponent's argument, but I don't wanna see ad hominem stuff. I'd rather see you dismantle the argument. Also, I'm cool with flex prep. 

A little more info:

So I did LD for three years and I saw a lot of weird atypical frameworks and a lot of completely "normal" traditional-style frameworks. I will vote for either so long as they are well justified. This means that you prove why x-weighing system is better than y-weighing system. If you just say that x-weighing system does z-good thing, that isn't really a justification. You need to directly compare to your opponent's framework (unless they drop FW but that would be dumb so don't rely on it). Counterplans are fine, but you're gonna have to prove that they're mutually exclusive. Same with K's. (See policy background above.) Read a Disad if you want...but a DA is basically just a neg contention, so reading it with a separate DA format in LD would be kinda weird. 

The Framework debate should be handled as a weighing system in a way and a moral lens in the other way. I'm not crazy about deon if it's not well-warranted and I find util to be a lot more intuitive and easy to justify...but if you justify a deontological framework well, and defend it well against your opponent, I will probably pick you up on framework. Justifications and warrants and impacts are key. Also. Framework is how your impacts have to be evaluated and weighed against your opponent. Which means if you lose framework and you can't link your impacts into your opponent's framework you're probably SOL. Which is why framework clash is so, so important. Like, even if your values are both Morality you both probably have different conceptualizations of morality, so just because you say your values are the same doesn't mean framework is a wash. Clash. Or you'll probably lose. 

Contention level stuff is gonna be really dependent on your warrants. Policy has conditioned me to care more about cards than about analytics, but if you have a killer analytic and it dismantles your opponent's warrants, I'll probably notice and be impressed. So long as the logic and warrants are clear I probably won't have any issues with your contentions. In terms of impact calc, just be sure to link into the framework that won the framework debate and prove how you can achieve the value in the round better than your opponent. 

K's and critical arguments are fine. Just make sure you clearly articulate what the world of the alternative looks like and contextualize it with relation to the weighing system of the round. If you don't articulate an alternative, I'm going to flow the "kritik" as a disad. Because a K without an alt is really just a disad. Make sure you clearly articulate the alternative and explain why the mindset shift to that of the alt is preferable to SQuo. 

TL;DR weigh your impacts well and make sure your arguments are warranted and don't say offensive shit. Do these things better than your opponent and I'll probably pick you up. 

Hello! :3

I Maya Fray-Witzer, a 4th year LD debater from Lexington High School (MA). I was competitive for my first 3 years in the activity and now I am a teaching assistant for the novice LD class at my school.

I would classify myself as a more traditional debater (less "tech"/"circuit") than some of my peers, but I will attempt to evaluate any argument.

I love framing.

I'm simply looking for claim - warrant - impact, intelligent argument generation, and a general care for other debaters and the activity.

Have fun, learn lots!

Background: I was actively involved in LD both as a competitor and a coach for 6 years. Currently I'm a student at the University of Pennsylvania.

Technique Preferences: I classify myself as more of a traditional debater, so I love progressive debates built on rhetorical framework and sound reasoning, that kind of thing. But I don't have anything against Ks, CPs, DAs, etc. as long as they are well-articulated. So Ks should always be followed by a convincing alternative. I'd appreciate it if CX is strategically used to undercut the validity of your opponent's arguments, rather than to ask a random array of clarification questions. Clash is important! During your rebuttals, reference and build on what you've got from CX, and I'll be happy to throw in some extra points for you. Lastly, try to touch on as many of your opponent's points (if not all) as possible. That being said, I don't respect tactics like spreading or talking really fast, so please refrain from doing those things.

Well-constructed arguments delivered in a professional manner at a calm pace!

Background: I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for three years at South Anchorage HS in Anchorage, AK. My circuit was mostly traditional, but I have attended national tournaments such as NCFL and Arizona State. As a result, I have a working knowledge of certain national circuit concepts. I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania that occasionally judges LD and PF.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

How I Evaluate the Round: I start by looking at the framework debate and seeing who wins that debate. Then, I evaluate the contention-level debate through the winning framework and determine a winner from there. I tend to focus on the issues that both debaters focus on in their final speech. I'll buy anything as long as it's well-explained and properly warranted and impacted and whatnot. You can expect good speaks from me if you do a good job of debating the framework. If you prefer the contention-level debate, that's cool too. Just make sure that you do a good job of weighing arguments for me. Also, when you extend arguments, make sure to reexplain the warrant and the impact when you do so. Blippy extensions and arguments are not your friends.

Definitional Debates: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Please try and avoid these at all costs.

Cross-ex: I pay attention to cross-examination pretty closely, but I won't take CX into account when making my decision unless you bring it up in your speech later.

Speed: I'm not the greatest at handling extremely high speaking speeds, to be completely honest. You can definitely talk quickly (I usually talked around 250-260 wpm in high school), but I probably won't be able to properly flow a full-on spread. I will yell "clear" if I think that you are either going too fast or are just unclear. Please slow down for taglines and author names at the very least. Also, please don't use speed to exclude your opponent from the round. If you do it, I'll nuke your speaks because the debate should be accessible to everyone who's involved in the round.

Kritiks: I'm more than willing to buy them, but please don't go overly fast if you're going to run one. I need to be able to actually understand the argument that you're making, and it can be kind of tough to do that if you're going extremely fast. I'm not really well-versed in K literature, so please do me a favor and slow down so that I can actually understand your argument. I won't vote for a K if I don't understand it.

DAs/CPs: I'll buy them as long as you explain them well.

Theory: I'll buy it as long as it's not frivolous theory. Only run it if there's an actual abuse that's occurring in the round. Make sure that you have voting issues when you run theory!

Speaker Points: I tend to be pretty generous with speaker points. My general range is anywhere from 25-30 speaker points. I tend to average between 28 and 29 speaker points. Generally, I calculate speaker points depending on how good of a speaker you were, how smart/clever you were in round, your use of CX, and your organization/use of voting issues in round.

Above all else, have fun! If you have other questions, ask me before the round!

I will be looking for stock issues, links, impacts. Make sure to cite all of your cards correctly. Please make sure to frame your speeches out so they flow and transition to your next points well.

I am a publishing professional and ESL teacher with a provisional certificate in English (grades 9-12). From 2009 to 2012, I served as a replacement teacher in the Princeton Public Schools, and in my final year, taught English and journalism at Princeton High School. Prior to teaching, I was enrolled in a doctoral program in modern history and literature at Drew University, finishing with my M. Phil. in European intellectual history. I currently work in the design department at Princeton University Press.

As a freshman in high school, I participated in forensics, competing in the area of duo performance. I am delighted to join the National Speech and Debate Association as a judge. Because I am a newcomer to debate, I prefer that the debaters present their arguments clearly and carefully. I have no experience with spreading, and will likely lose track of any argument that is emitted in rapid bursts. Quality over quantity, please.

I debated 2 years for Dulles High School on the local circuit in Houston, TX. I was more of a lay debater, but I don't mind progressive argumentation. I'm currently a senior at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework that I should use to evaluate the round. Your framework/decision calculus (of any kind) should be explained and justified well.

I've been out of the activity for a while, and I don't remember every technical detail of more progressive arguments. This means that I'm not up to speed on the norms of progressive arguments. Acronyms and quick analytics will leave me confused. Explain them well, tell me what I need to do, and above all, make sure you're not being frivolous.

On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm a 6-7. Slow down for signposts and tag lines. If you're going too fast, I'll say "clear" but I've probably already missed something by then. If it's not on my flow, I won't vote off of it. Running through key voters and a breakdown of the round will help me a lot in your closing speech.

I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. If you debate strategically, speak eloquently, CX well, and/or are humorous, you'll probably be looking at higher speaks. Let me know if speaks might help you clear.

Email chain: bliu30@wharton.upenn.edu

Write my ballot for me. I'll give a more detailed paradigm before the start of round.

I am a parent judge and was a judge in 2017 Princeton Classic. For VLD, I prefer normal speed so I can clearly understand the arguments of each debater. I try to catch up with various theories but please refrain from using them when I am the judge.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

I did PF for four years in high school, and have been judging PF and LD ever since.

Here are my main areas of concern:

Spreading - Don't do it. If I can't understand what you're saying or the supporting evidence for it because you're speaking so fast, there's really no point to you saying it. Remember this is primarily a public speaking event and you're job is to convince me. Speak at a normal/slightly above normal pace.

Gish Galloping - Don't do it. I think it is abusive and you'll lose. I'd rather see a few well developed arguments then 27 arguments supported with one sentence.

Tabula Rasa - I come into the round knowing nothing about the topic; everything I know about it I learn from the debaters.

Counter Plans - Generally not a fan. Argue for or against the resolution, not something in between.

How to win - Convince me to go with your side. On the Aff, convince me of the resolution. On the Neg, convince me that the resolution will not solve the problem, the status quo is better, etc.

SPEED: 

Speak clearly and slowly. I should be able to understand what you’re saying. 

ARGUMENTATION:

I need you to show me why your side is right compared to your opponent’s. I need you to be clear when you’re arguing and clear on what you’re trying to argue. I am a lay judge so i need arguments and reasons to be clear.

Overall, be kind to one another and have fun! 

I always try to judge off the framework and the Value Criterion (VC). I expect debaters to have contentions that support their VC. I flow every round, and will judge based on the flow. I weigh the impacts based off the VC and evidence of contentions. I do not prefer fast talkers, as it will be more difficult for me to flow. I have judged at local WACFL tournaments in Northern Virginia, 2017 Princeton Classic, and 43rd 2017 University of Pennsylvania Tournament.