Current debater for Mountain Brook. I've done PF for 5 years

Add me to the email chain: allencaroline75@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Highland Park (MN) '12-'16.

Kentucky ‘16-‘19.

AFFs must read a plan. NEG teams must either say the plan does something bad or is not topical.

I'm pretty bad for T against policy AFFs unless it's egregious. T is not automatically offense/defense. Terminal defense can beat T.

Yes judge kick.

Presumption goes to the side that advocates less change.

No “inserting” anything, you have to read it.

Conditionality is fine, within reason.

The best debates have lots of case debating, lots of author indicts, lots of re-highlighting the other team’s evidence, and lots of evidence comparison.

I like teams who care about the activity, cut a lot of cards, and know things about the world. If you show me that's you, you will do well. Conversely, acting like you don’t care or don’t want to be here is cringe and a good way to make me not care about what you’re saying.

I am a third year public forum debater at Mountain Brook High School. I have been debating since eighth grade and actually debated at mstoc in my eighth grade year. As for the round I will keep your time but i expect you to keep your own time as well. I expect you to be courteous to your opponents but I will not vote you down for being aggressive in cross. I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. As for the actual debate:

Framework: Framework is a way for me to view the round. I will never actually vote for a team off of a framework. You must win your actual arguments to win the round. If one team has a framework and the other does not, framework does not default to the team that reads it they must win the framework debate. DO NOT READ COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AS A FRAMEWORK.

1st Constructive: I expect a loud clear voice. Cases should be around 4 min ideally but I will not vote you down if you do not meet that time.

2nd Constructive: I expect cards to back up what you are saying and recent evidence is very important. Cards must be cut correctly and ready if I call for them. Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

Summary: Summaries should be where the round starts to collapse into a couple of arguments. Focus on these arguments and why you should win the round. If you decide to go for something in final focus and did not bring it up in summary I will consider it dropped.

Final Focus: Coordinate your final focus with the summary speaker's so that you do not drop something important. Weigh your arguments.

Speaker Points: As long as you are not rude and speak with a clear voice you will get high speaks.

Hey guys! My name is Campbell. I've been debating PF since 8th grade so I am familiar with how it works. I don't have many preferences but here a couple:

1. Speed is fine but don't go so fast that I can't understand you. If I don't understand you, I won't flow your speech

2. I'm not going to keep your own time so that's up to you.

3. Don't just tell me that you've won arguments, explain how you've won them

4. If there is a framework, please tell me how you fit under it

5. During cross, please be civil. I understand it can get heated but you don't have to be mean

Overall, just have fun and try your best!

Topic knowledge:

I typically read a lot of news, and you can expect me to be on top of major current events. I also have a fairly broad knowledge base, and will usually know at the very least some background about a debate topic. That being said, I am not a debate coach, I do not prepare or help prepare cases on the debate topics, and I do not do any specialised research or read any briefs to acquaint myself with a topic I am going to judge. Do not expect me to know specific details, acronyms, jargon, or sources related to a topic unless you tell me about them/what they are. This is especially true in the earlier rounds at a tournament. If you're using names or acronyms you had never heard of before researching the topic, and would probably never learn otherwise, tell me what they mean the first time you use them.

The same thing goes for the background literature behind any K or other non-traditional arguments you make. I know very little abstract philosophy beyond the basics of deontological ethics vs utilitarianism. I tend to dislike Ks, but I'll keep an open mind to any argument and try to judge it on its merits. To do that, I'll probably need you to really explain the theory behind your K, rather than just name dropping a famous philosopher or one of their theories. If you don't, there's a good chance I'll have no idea what you're talking about. That won't end well for you.

Experience:

Competitive Experience: Two years of high school public forum. Two years of collegiate experience in various types of debate and speech events.

Judging Experience: Since 2016 for Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas, plus various types of speech

General:

I try to be Tabula Rasa, within reason. If you want me to know a specific piece of information, tell me. If you want me to weigh the round a certain way, tell me. If your opponent tells me what they think I need to know, and how to weigh the round, and you don't, they're going to have a distinct advantage.

Organize your speeches well, and please signpost and give clear tags as you go. It makes it easier for me to give you the credit you deserve for your arguments. If I don't know where to put something on my flow, it might get left out, or I might miss part of it while deciding where to flow it. Even if I do end up writing it down, it will probably be in the wrong place. I can't emphasize this enough: if I can't find something on my flow, then it didn't happen.

Every argument needs a link and an impact, and I prefer for these to be as clear as possible. Occasionally I see contentions without impacts, but more often than not, I see missing links. If your opponent shows me that you don't have a link, that point falls, period. If your opponent doesn't have a link, make this abundantly clear.

Clash with your opponent's case. The more you clash, the easier it is for me to see the strengths of your case and the flaws of your opponent's. If you just end up repeating your case, you're not giving me any new reasons to vote for your side or against your opponent's.

It should go without saying, but Lincoln Douglas is NOT one on one Policy debate, and Public Forum is NOT Policy-lite. If you want to debate policy style, I won't hold that against you. Policy is a valuable style of debate that stands on its own merits. Just don't do it when you're signed up to compete in LD or PF and I'm your judge.

Specifics:

Decorum - Be polite, be courteous, and be a decent human being. Poor decorum typically won't affect my decision on the ballot, but it will affect your speaker points. As long as you attack your opponent's arguments, and not them as people, we should be fine.

Evidence - Evidence is a powerful tool. We are not all experts on every topic, but evidence allows the experts to weigh in to separate truth from fiction. It can strengthen your arguments, and every case should have at least some. But evidence does not replace basic logic. It does not replace the need to provide links. The better you understand your evidence, and that of your opponents, the stronger your position. I also prefer quality over quantity: don't try to overwhelm me or your opponent with evidence, use it to further develop your position.

Speed - I'm not a fan of spreading. If you do end up going too fast for me to flow, I'll put my pen down, cross my arms, and look unhappy. It should be pretty obvious. Once you slow down, I'll start flowing again. If this happens, and you fix it, then no harm, no foul. If you don't slow down, then I won't flow a word you say, and you'll get terrible speaker points. My body language will be clear. Listen to it.

TL;DR Version

Be clear, be logical, be polite, give a well-structured case, don't spread, tell me what I need to know, and clash with your opponents.

Firstly, let me say how much I respect young debaters. More than most, I understand the struggles and triumphs associated with doing speech and debate in middle and high school. No matter what, know your team and community supports you and you are building invaluable skills which will likely be useful for the rest of your life.

Now, to get into my background. I have done speech and/or debate since the 6th grade, where I debated for Becker Middle School in Las Vegas, NV. This began a lifelong passion not only for public speaking, but for intelligent discussion of the issues that matter. I have debated on the state and national level in PF and LD, going to nationals both in NSDA and CFL for PF in 2017.

Now I am a junior at Rhodes College in Memphis, TN pursuing a career in education policy. Ultimately, the ability to make deliberate change in your community will be the highest use of the skills you gain through this process. Be mindful of that as you are formulating and delivering your arguments.

I have a passion for this activity because it means something. I don’t stand for fancy rhetoric or elaborate k’s. I want to see you make your argument effectively and courteously. If you speak too quickly for me to understand you, I cannot give you the W. If you are rude to your opponents, I will not give you the W. If you do not effectively argue your point while addressing the opponent’s assertions, I cannot give you the W.

Exchange ideas effectively and expand my understanding of both sides of the argument. That’s how you win my ballot.

Good luck!

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

IF YOU DID NOT GET FEEDBACK ON YOUR BALLOT FROM ME, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT EVANRFELDMAN@GMAIL.COM

Background:

HS Competitor at Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES) from the West LA district in California. High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.

Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:

CC Competitor at Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) from AFA D1

Uni Competitor at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) from AFA D5

Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA

DEBATE:

1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State (2016) , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats (2016), Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award 2016).

2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State(2017), Co-National Champion at NOFC (2021)

IE'S/SPEECH:

CA Community College (CCCFA) States: (2016-2017) 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE (2016). Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award 2016)

MI States (MISL) : Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner (2021). State Champ in Poetry and Extemp, 3rd in After Dinner Speaking (2022)

Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp Semifinalist in Ext (2016).

AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry (2022), Semi in Persuasion/Oratory (2021)

NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE (2021-2022), Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory (2021) , 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry (2021-2022)

NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE (All 2021)

Interstate Oratorical Association (IOA): National Qualifier (2021)

Professional Speech and Debate Association (PSDA): Season 2 Champion in Prepared Speech, Runner Up in Spontaneous Debate and Spontaneous Speech, 3rd in Indy Sweeps (All 2022)

Coaching Experience:

Coached middle school speech and debate for nine years, high school for eight years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years.

Congress: Champions/Runners Up at Harvard, Stanford/Palm Classic, NSDA, CHSSA State, CSULB (Jack Howe) and La Costa Canyon (Winter Classic). Finalists at Yale, Berkeley, UK Season Opener, MLK, Nova Titan, The Tradition, TOC Digital Series, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CMSF States, TOC, MS TOC

Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats

PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats

Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State

POI: Champion/Runner Up at CHSSA State/ NSDA Nats Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, NIETOC

OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CLU, CHSSA States

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.

2. Evidence

A. Recency

I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).

B. Citing

Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).

C. Sourcing

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.

D. Conflicting evidence

I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).

E Quality/Bias:

I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.

3. Delivery:

A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.

I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.

B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a 20-something year old adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.

d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.

It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).

Event Specific Notes

A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.

a. Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory

b. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.

c. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

d. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed and/or clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

e . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.

f. No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

g. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

h. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.

2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.

If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).

3. Speaking order

Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.

B. Within an argument

State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.

If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.

5. PO'S

Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.

Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.

I'm a lay judge with no real experience judging.

I will make my decision based on who I think did the better debating. Make sure that in the back half of the round you clearly explain why you should win the debate.

Also before the debate starts please tell me the topic, your name, school, and the side you are on. That will really make things easier.

Other than that, Be kind to your opponents, speak slowly and clearly and just make sure to have fun!

Part-time coach at the University of Kentucky, formerly debated at UK (graduated in 2020)

add me to the email chain: genevieveelise1028 at gmail dot com

General Thoughts

I like for debate to be fun and will generally enjoy judging in debates where it is clear you are having a good time and doing what you're passionate about. Don't be afraid to let your personality show in how you debate - being funny or spicy in the CX are often times I enjoy the debate the most. I understand the amount of time and dedication it takes to do this activity seriously, so I will work very hard to make sure that I am evaluating your debate in a way that respects the hard work that you have put into the activity, and the time and energy you are using to be present at each tournament.

The more I reflect on how I judge, the more I think it is really important for debaters to provide instruction/guidance in their speeches about how to tie all of the different pieces of the debate together. 2NRs and 2ARs that do a lot of this, backed by quality evidence read in earlier speeches, will often find themselves winning, getting good speaker points, and being more satisfied with my decision and how I understood the overarching picture in the debate. I generally believe, in the 2NR and 2AR, reading cards should be an absolute last resort.

Online Debate

I appreciate the accessibility benefits of online debate but do think it suffers from some quality deficit. If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away for a number of reasons. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

I have an audio processing disorder, which makes it more challenging to flow due to the variety of ways that online debate affects clarity/feedback/etc - please take this into account and put in more effort to be clear on your transitions, tags, etc. It helps me to be able to see you talking, so if you are angled to be completely hidden by your laptop, I will likely be less of a precise flow than otherwise.

Please recall that while I cannot hear you when you are muted on zoom, I can still see you - things like talking for the entire 2AR, blatantly not flowing your opponents speeches, etc are still bad practice, even if you can technically do it.

Nukes Topic

I love this topic, think debating about nukes is educational and based on a robust controversy in the literature, and personally worked in nonprolif/arms control advocacy so it's an issue I care about lots!

That being said, I'm bored - I think assurances/deterrence is a great debate, but have a pretty high threshold for debating the DAs well on both sides - I think innovation in the way people answer and debate the generics could be more interesting and will reward quality in connecting all of the pieces of these debates. I would also enjoy judging some more varied negative strategies, and will reward innovation on the topic with good speaker points

soapbox moment - say it with me: de-clare-uh-tory - declatory is NOT a word

DA/Case/CP

Disad and case is awesome, more case analysis that is smart will be rewarded in points. I think smart and specific counterplans are cool. The more specific and in grounded in the literature your CP is, the less likely I am to care about theory.

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

I think a limited topic is good and care immensely about the comparison of one version of the topic to another when it comes to T. If you cannot explain coherently what the difference between the two topics are, I am much less likely to care about your very abstract appeals to the notion of limits or ground.

K (vs aff with a plan)

I enjoy judging these debates. Being more specific about the topic is far better than some random backfile check about Baudrillard. You should explain your arguments clearly vs using buzz words because I will be much more likely to understand what you are trying to communicate.

The specificity of the link and explanation of the link and how it coheres with your broader theory about the world and interacts with the consequences of the plan are all things that strongly influence how much I am persuaded by the K. If you have a link to the action of the plan and clearly explain how the impact to that compares to the impacts of the affirmative, as well as having an alternative that resolves this impact, I am likely to vote for you. I find myself less often voting for the K in debates where the neg relies on a strong framework/prioritize rhetorical/discursive links path but would not preclude this entirely because the aff is often time pressured and poorly equipped to debate about framework and fiat.

In addition, I think it's important to resolve how I should weigh impacts in the later speeches - I find myself often concluding I should weigh the aff and its consequences but also weighing the discursive/ethical/structural impacts described by the neg but not getting a lot of instruction about how to compare those two things and decide which one to vote on. I think mitigating claims about total extinction impacts with impact defense and specific solvency take-outs would go a long way to changing how I vote in these debates.

Planless Affs

I have found myself voting both ways in framework debates, but am usually persuaded by the benefits of clash, procedural fairness, etc. The more specific the aff is to the topic & good aff cards are things that most often lead to an aff ballot in these debates. The negative making a strong, coherent limits argument that includes arguments that appeal to clash while providing defense that proves the topic is compatible with the affs theory are things that most often lead to a neg ballot in these debates.

I think specific strategies against these affs are interesting and good (whether that be a da/k/pic) and will reward this specific research with speaker points. I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

I usually am not persuaded by strategies that rely on the idea that we should destroy debate, or that extinction or death is good. I do not think there is much of a difference between "debating about death being good" and "advocating death being good" so if your strategy relies on a pivot resembling "well we don't think everyone should die but we should talk about death", it is not a good strategy to use in front of me.

Misc.

I tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents.

If you are going to read cards written by former debaters, take ten minutes to ask around why they are no longer in the community. Strongly consider if the reason is one which should preclude their evidence from being introduced in a debate. I do not expect perfection in this regard, but I do think we should be talking about this.

It has come to my attention that I am what one might call a "points fairy". I will be working to adjust my points to more accurately reflect the scale I find most other judges follow.

I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed). That being said, evidence is best paired with strong judge instruction in the rebuttals. There are instances when evidence is good enough to speak for itself, but in a debate where both sides read decent ev on an issue, I will often find myself voting for the team who tells me how and why their arguments matter more.

After hosting a bunch of tournaments in my time at UK, I am sympathetic to the pleas of tournament hosts and tabrooms. Please be on time, keep things efficient in debates, and clean up behind yourselves.

My facial expressions are likely unrelated to the things you are saying. In particular, I may come across low-energy. This doesn't mean that I am unhappy with the debate (although if I find your debating upbeat, engaging, and high-energy I will probably be a bit more likely to mirror that). Tournaments are a long-haul, I judge a lot of debates at each tournament (often every debate), and there seems to be increasingly little time afforded to restorative things like sleep or eating, so don't worry too much if I'm coming across a little sleepy.

Also, I sometimes just stare off into space when I'm typing - I'm still paying attention as long as I'm typing.

I'm a Senior at Mountain Brook High School and have done Public Forum debate since I was in seventh grade so can understand what's going on and most of the technical terms. I'd say that I prefer a more traditional debate round but most importantly, be respectful and have fun.

My important preferences to keep in mind:

1: Be respectful of your opponents and please do not be rude in cross

2: I don't flow cross so if an important point was made, bring it up in your later speeches

3: I will assume a cost benefit analysis which is perfectly fine unless you tell me otherwise

4: Speed is ok but Public Forum should be accessible to anyone so be clear

5: I don't mind and even encourage teams to call for evidence from the other team but don't overdo it

6: I will keep time during the round but y'all should also. Be clear on when and how much prep you're using

7: Please extend arguments through all of your speeches. If you don't and your opponent calls you out I will have to drop the argument

8: Sign post where you are going with your speech so I know where to flow

9: I encourage off time roadmaps at the beginning of your speeches

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything in my paradigm or that I didn't address

I debated for four years in pf (and two tournaments in policy). Here's what you need to know about my judging:

Please preflow before getting to round.

Warrants > evidence, always

You are not going to win my ballot by saying your opponents dropped some random card. If your opponents drop a solid warrant that is another story.

I don't intervene

That being said, before you run some squirly argument:

- the less true an argument is the lower my threshold for a response and the higher my threshold for a frontline (For example MAD is enough of a response to most nuke war arguments in my book, and proving MAD wouldn't apply is a very high burden of proof)

- Regardless of the quality of the argument, I will not vote off an argument that I cannot explain back to you. If I don't understand your argument, that is not intervention, that is you not doing the necessary work as a debater.

I do not call for cards unless specifically asked to

- If your argument relies entirely on a piece of evidence, you obviously have not done enough warranting. I will default to the team that warrants the best if I need to.

- Make responses to the substance of their argument not their evidence.

- If their evidence is very badly cut or misleading you can tell me to call for it, but if their argument is well warranted I will still vote for it. If you want me to vote against them because of their evidence you have to tell me that. Otherwise you can evidence challenge.

I will pay limited attention in cross

- you have to say everything in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision

I don't like sticky D: that being said I will consider it if the response was not frontlined in rebuttal. If it was frontlined, it has to be in summary for me to consider it.

- I'm also not going to buy any sneaky extensions through grand cross, if you drop your impact or link in summary, you lose.

Respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal

Please weigh, you should make my decision for me.

- Weighing in rebuttal will boost your speaks

Ask me questions, I love talking through arguments and helping debaters, but it becomes problematic when its less of "how can I get better" and more "you should have voted this way for this reason."

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I prefer clear, concise, easy to follow debates. Please sign post and clearly reference both your previous points and your competitors. Make it clear why I should vote for you. Avoid dropping arguments but highlight those that have been dropped by your opponent. Stay respectful to your competitor. I take this point very seriously :). I have been judging since 2008 but still consider myself less technical/more lay person.

Hi everyone! I'm Claudia and I debated PF for six years at Poly Prep (Poly LM/LS).

Please please please be preflowed and ready to debate especially if you're flight 2

also set up email chain asap even if I'm not there, also for NSD pls bring food and drink 4 me

I'll call for specific stuff if I need to so don't add me to the email chain unless you're sending out a TW, opt out form, or need to send speech docs- cleduc@wesleyan.edu

TL;DR

tech > truth. You can speak fast (but <300 wpm, you should send a speech doc). Defense is sticky if it's not frontlined. First final can do new weighing. Collapse. Extend well, warrant, weigh and you should be good!

Read what you want

I will vote for pretty much any argument that is warranted well.

How I judge

--1: Speeches--

Cross: I don't listen to cross. Any concession must be explained in a speech. Be nice. If both teams agree to skip GCX, that's fine with me. Both teams would get 1 min of prep instead.

Rebuttal: Read as much offense as you want. You must frontline in second rebuttal, especially turns. Defense should probably also be frontlined, but I'll be more flexible

Summary: First summary needs to extend all offense you want me to vote on. First summary also must extend defense if it was frontlined by the second rebuttal. No need to extend defense that was not frontlined (defense is sticky). I'll evaluate new offense in first summary if it is in response to an argument made in second rebuttal.

Final focus: You can weigh new in first final as long as its not like new overviews. You should probably try to expand on weighing from summary- it'll end up being more strategic in most scenarios. Second final cannot weigh new or give new implications. The best finals are the ones that slow down and clarify tech rounds.

--2: Technical Stuff--

I default to util but I'll evaluate pretty much any framing argument. I presume neg. I'll disclose after the round. If you ask me to disclose speaks, I'll also do that.

Evidence: I really don't like paraphrased evidence in case. If your opponents call you out for paraphrasing poorly, your speaks will be severely hurt. If the round is being decided on evidence, I will almost always vote for the non-paraphrased card. You need to have cut cards available on demand. If it takes you longer than like 2 minutes to find a card, it comes out of your prep :'(

-> Misconstruing evidence is bad for you. It will either hurt your speaks, or, depending on the severity, lead to you losing. I would MUCH rather evaluate an analytic than poor evidence.

-> I also don't think evidence is that important. I will evaluate a good warrant over badly explained evidence.

Prep time:

Don't steal prep- it's so annoying. Flex prep is totally fine.

Speech times: I'll allow like a 5-10 second grace period. Just please don't abuse that. If you start weighing or move onto a whole new area of the flow after time, I probably won't evaluate it. You can finish your sentence in cross ig but I'm probably not listening so it won't matter lol.

Speed: Send a speech doc over 300 wpm. If I miss something because you're going too fast without a doc, that's your fault.

Disclosure: I do not care lol- I'll vote for disclosure theory. I will also vote against disclosure theory.

Speaks: I think speaks are kinda dumb and random. I do them based on strategic decisions and clarity. I will disclose them if you want.

Postrounding: Go ahead :P

Trigger/ content warnings: I think it's better to be safe than sorry. TWs aren't required, but I think they are good. If someone is actually triggered in the round, the round should be paused anyways. Please let me know if something like this happens. I will also vote for TW theory (I won't hack for it, but I think there are some pretty good arguments so).

--3: Progressive Debate--

I am pretty experienced in theory rounds, with framing, and with topical Ks. Read what you will, but do it at your own risk. I will try my best to evaluate it as best as possible. Overexplain rather than underexplain please. You can read prog on younger debaters, but please help them try and understand rather than dunk on them.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 2

LARP - 1

Kritik - 2, 3

Tricks - 4

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

High Theory - 5

Theory:

I don't really think disclosure does anything. I think paraphrasing is bad (especially in case). I will not hack for any theory despite personal opinions on it.

I don't like frivolous theory. I will evaluate it. But, you will probably get low speaks.

You should read a counterinterp. I will also vote on RVIs unless one team reads no RVIs and wins it.

Theory has to be read in the speech after the violation. You must extend your shell in every speech after you read it.

Kritiks:

I ran a Cap K like twice and I've watched/debated in some K rounds.

I will evaluate non- T Ks and performance Ks. I just need some extra help because I'm not as familiar.

Tricks:

Alright ig. They're dumb, but whatever.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Phoenix Military Academy 16

University of Kentucky 20

Top level

I measure a debate based off of how well you interact with one another. Clash is important and if you’re not engaging you’re opponent you’re not debating. The more evidence comparison the better.

You should do your best to frame the debate round for me. Tell me how I should sign my ballot.

I don’t take time for flashing, and yes, put me on the email chain: stephanimarlopez@gmail.com

DA/CP

They’re fine.

Except consult and process CPs. These counterplans are infinitely regressive to the point where you can just say "Consult my neighbor then do the plan." If you want to go for one of these CPs you have to have pretty great cards saying why your specific process is detrimental to the success or failure of the aff. I will vote on it but very rarely.

Ks

The weirder they get the more explanation you’re going to have to give. I am accustomed to the more mainstream identity and anti-state Ks such as: Eco-fem, Neolib, Anthro, and Wilderson.

I will not kick an alt and use it as a DA toward the case. If you want to win on a K you have to win why the alternative is a better option than the aff.

I will most likely always grant you a link, but you have to properly contextualize it the aff.

Clash is important, and I’m docking your speaks if half of the 2NC is an overview.

K Affs

Aff Ks are cool. You need to show me how your aff interacts with the neg as well.

If it follows the rez: cool

If it doesn't defend anything: cool

If it does defend things: cool

If it doesn’t follow the rez: You need explain why your model of debate is a better than the resolution. In other words, why should I evaluate your form of the debate? You also need a reason as to why it can’t be done under the resolution.

Theory

Usually not convincing

Condo:

You have to go all in for me to vote on it, but keep in mind 17 DA’s are as shitty as 3 CPs/Ks

Misc

Clipping will be dealt with accordingly

Any hurtful comments referring to (but not limited to) gender, sexuality, or race is not going to be tolerated.

My name is Stephani not judge.

My pronouns are she/her.

Puns are highly encouraged. Here's my favorite: Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was too tired! Hah Also Ill boost your speaker points if you reference My Hero Academia as I am currently obsessed with it.

If you have any questions or want more feedback about a round shoot me an email!

For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com

1. I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
2. Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
3. Please be respectful and kind.
4. If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
5. If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
6. Have FUN!

I am a former High School and College Policy Debater.

Likes:

Clean, and organized flow, and a well thought out strategy/Aff's.

I'm fine with all off case arguments. However, I am not going to do the work for you. It is your job to articulate arguments, what I should do with them, and the overall implications/risk/impact analysis.

My background is in progressive politics and nonprofit work. #tugatmyheartstrings

Former debate coach, current history teacher. Familiar in policy, congressional, and parli. Have also judged PF and LD.

As a judge, I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments, not watching theatrics. Debate decorum is important to me; meaning: stand up when you speak, speak loud and clear, spread if you must but enunciate, and most importantly be respectful to all persons in the room. I am fine with open cross-x so long as all debaters agree to it.

I enjoy CP's and DisAds for a Neg.

T: I don't usually make my decision on this unless there is very little else to decide upon. But pull it out if you want, I DEF have decided rounds solely on T before. But if you are using T AND a CP AND DisAds, that's nonsense bc you have lost no ground. Always debate strategically AND wisely.

Kritiks: Make sure it links or I won't vote for it. Know your lit. Bc if it is evident that you don't know it, I can't vote for you.

Watch me. If I am not flowing, it is probably because:

1) I have decided that particular issue is a non-voter

2) I can't follow you

3) I have already made up my mind because of an egregious error

Good luck, debaters!

I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit. While I am a "flow judge" and can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.

Couple things to consider when having me as a judge:

1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus, although I'm okay with first speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to FF.

2. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; PLEASE do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.

3. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.

Overall the key to winning my ballot is making the round as EASY AS POSSIBLE for me to evaluate. As the judge I want to do as little thinking as possible, so if you want to explain your arguments to me like I'm 5 years old, I'm game. The best way you can do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative presented throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily than a card dump. More often than not, if you just logically make more sense than your opponents, you will win my ballot.

Other thoughts:

-I hate wasted time in rounds where teams take 10+ minutes outside of their prep time trading evidence.

-If both teams are chill with it we can skip grand crossfire.

-I will never call for cards. If you have an issue with a card, bring it up in your speech.

-I don't vote for anything said in crossfire, if its important, bring it up in your speech.

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

• Please keep track of your own prep
• Please be as quick with tech as possible - I will deduct from your prep time if this becomes unreasonable as I want to be respectful of the folks running the tournament
• No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily
• Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Background: 4 years of Public Forum at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School as KESDA champion, KHSSL runner-up and NSDA elimination round qualifier. Consider well-informed on PFD procedures, adequately informed on general domestic politics, fairly uninformed on foreign policy.

Procedure: I will flow arguments to the best of my ability, which is fairly well. Spreading is to your disadvantage; I will always prefer a few coherent and well-defended arguments to a lot of flimsy ones. Despite my experience as a debater, I appreciate speeches that are clear in their definitions and light on jargon, as they are more effective rhetorically.

Notes:

Personal, ad-hominem argumentation will not be tolerated.

In cross examination, it is the responsibility of both parties to lodge sufficient offense. If one team dominates cross, that is to their advantage. Note that this does not excuse teams from ignoring each other's questions or delivering slim/unclear answers.

Front-lining is unnecessary, but looks good. As the first-speakers, you should not use your opponent's failure to frontline (rebut in an immediately subsequent speech arguments you make in your speech) as offense.

Final focus should crystallize the debate into clear voting issues.

Impact calculus will be conducted ONLY to the extent that your links are present. For example, I do not weigh nuclear war without a clear explanation of how escalation will occur.

In the case of contradictory evidence, preference will be given to the debater who provides an adequate reconciliation of the evidence (why both may be true, and why that still benefits your argument) over the debater who argues their opponent's research is unreliable (outdated, biased, etc.)

I don't need your road maps. I won't dock you, but I don't need them.

I do not ask for evidence to prove statements that may be assumed to be true by a member of the general public unless evidence is introduced to the opposite effect. (For instance, there's no need to provide cards for "communism is bad" unless your opponents provide cards for "communism is good.")

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" plus a cr

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and alt are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessively demanding curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

I'm a parent judge and this is only my second tournament judging. Do not speak too fast and explain your arguments thoroughly. Be respectful to each other and have fun!

I will evaluate any argument, except for any argument that is derogative, racist, sexist,

or ableist so with that being said it won’t be strategic for you to run

“Racism is good” in front of me. I have ran critical arguments and understand most of

them but please don’t assume that since I know it I will vote on, I ONLY VOTE ON

WHAT I FLOW. I feel if you go for any procedurals arguments such as( T, Framework,

Theory) I will need to hear some abusive story, and some VOTING ISSUE, and if you

run Topicality I need to hear a topical version of the aff and what I should I prefer such

as Competing interps or reasonability. Also, with traditional policy arguments I think

these debates are really evidence based and should also be articulated well. So I’m

generally an open judge just please articulate all arguments with a claim and warrant

and some weighing will be nice.

Introduction-

My name is Marcus Williams and i'm a senior at the University of Kentucky.

My email is marcusvwilliams.ii@gmail.com . You can email me with any questions you have. If you do email chains you can also add me to it before the round.

General -

I really enjoy debate and I think it should be a fun activity that everyone should be comfortable doing. With that being said, I am open to all arguments that teams make. I have NOT done any debating or research on this years high school/middle school topic, but that doesn't mean I am clueless to how things work. It just means you need more explanation.

Disads -

Do impact and framing work. I prefer specificity when it comes to link arguments. Generic link arguments can get it done with nuance, but I am lenient to aff no link arguments if they press your very general evidence.

Topicality -

Topicality should be treated as a disad, meaning that you should do similar impact calc. Violations should be aff specific. T debates can be kinda confusing if you are just repeating your arguments without answering the other teams, so make sure to do comparative work.

Counterplans -

Generic counterplans are fine. Ensure you isolate all 1AC internal links early on and how you resolve them in advance.

Theory -

I am persuaded by a lot of aff theory arguments however, I find I vote neg a lot more in theory debates because of a lack of impact comparison and technical drops. going for one liner theory arguments are fine if their dropped, but they have to be clearly communicated and substantiated with an impact.

Kritiks -

let em rip

Policy Debate- I am a very flexible judge. I am willing to listen to anything as long as it is impacted well. I am open to K affs, but if it is not explained well enough I will vote you down. I would rather not call for cards, but I will if I have to. Another thing, I really want to hear impacts. I do not like debates that are like two ships passing by in the night. It turns into who I think did better, but as debaters you should write the ballot out for me. Please try to keep email chains and or flashing time to a decent time. If it takes too long I will start taking prep away unless, there are tech issues. Clipping cards is not okay with me, if I catch you clipping card I will vote you down. If you steal prep I will take away a lot of speaker points. Please be clear if you are spreading!

LD- My experience is mainly in policy debate. I don't mind how fast that you read, but make sure that you are reading loud and clearly. I also evaluate things based on the flow pretty much. Make sure things are extended and analyzed well. Also, make sure there is clash in the round! I cannot stand under views -_- There is no reason to have one because you spend so much time in it and never go back to it in the round. That analysis can be done somewhere else like in one of your other contentions or adding a whole new contention. Impact analysis is something that is very important to me! You should be writing my ballot for me and much as possible!

Experience: 5 years coaching middle school public forum debate, 4 years competing in Public Forum and Extemp

Speed: I’m fine with speed where it’s neccessary, but not at the cost of diction or persuasion . If you are attempting it and I can only understand every other word, you’ll lose points

I flow arguments very heavily so signposting will get you far. If you counter opponents points but don’t direct me which contention or sub point, it’s possible I won’t follow. Don’t make me do the work for you. Don’t argue framework too much, bring it up in final focus to frame contentions.

Try to cover as much ground as possible. Clashing and focusing on one argument the entire debate frustrates me, and I prefer if you provide counters for all parts of your opponents contentions rather than focusing on only one part.

I don’t flow cross examine, but I do pay close attention it. This is an excellent spot to make up some extra speaker points or solidify your lead.

It also goes without saying, but keep it civil. Yelling or rudeness will lose you huge points. I very much value a professional and confident debater rather than a bully or poor winner.

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.