I coach Congress and Speech, so I value argumentation and delivery equally. Listen to the room, avoid rehash, be responsive to arguments. Finally, be respectful—we are here to grow, not to tear each other down.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Hi, my name is Lorena Dakaj

During the debate please keep in mind the following things:

- speak clearly and loudly at a moderate speed.

- be considerate of your opponent's mistakes or mispronunciations of words.

- extend arguments from summary through final focus.

- in the final focus, make it clear to me why your case is more persuasive or more informative.

I do not flow cross; I do ask for it to be civil and used for asking questions. Cross is not used to start arguments and become stuck on one topic of discussion. I encourage weighing, good sportsmanship, and a mutually agreed upon framework on which to base the round. The most important thing I look for is organization within speeches. The better a speech's organization, the easier it is to flow. If I am able to follow a team's arguments I am more likely to lean in their favor. I want the ability to follow a team's train of thought on why they won the round/certain points.

Three years coaching PF, 4 years debating British Parliamentary. I prefer socialist, people-centric advocacy. If you are spreading, make sure that you are still actually articulating the words in your speech. spreading is fine, but if it becomes inaudible then it makes 0 sense for me to flow the small chunks that I am able to catch. Spreading in this fashion is a tactic typically used to hinder an opponents ability to flow and keep up but it also has an adverse effect on the judge's ability to actually judge what you are saying. Ensure that you are linking your arguments back to your framework. Framework should be a rubric of sorts your team claims that needs to be fulfilled in order for you to win. If you would like to challenge evidence, I will look into it once the round is complete so all teams should have the non-redacted version of the sources they are using for their cards.

For Policy Debate: Novice Rounds only, If you spread I will not listen to you I will just flow off the email chain, If you want me to listen you have to slow down, Ks preferred.

For Parlimentary (NPDA) and IPDA: Open/Varsity rounds, Topicality is a voting issue but should not be the sole reason I vote for a side otherwise I'll be annoyed.

PF: (any division) Impact calculus is key. Offense and defense is crucial and will be weighed on my flow but it helps when you bring it up yourself as well.

I am an experienced parent judge. I'm also a practicing lawyer, so feel very much at home distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.

I value truth over tech. When it comes to contentions, I value quality over quantity - in other words I weigh arguments, and don't just count them. Make sure to warrant all of your arguments and explain impacts. Be persuasive. Add a little rhetorical flourish. Don't be boring.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

Assume I know nothing.

Make it believable and accurate.

Be respectful.

Don't tell me what to think, present evidence and clear and concise explanations to weigh in my final decision.

I'm good with speed, I just appreciate clarity. If you bring me a snack I will give you higher speaker points! Good Luck everyone!

Former Policy Debater, 2.5 years with Brooklyn Tech as Nov and JV (Varsity on regional circuits), 1.5 years with the CUNY Policy Team. I ran stock issues for roughly 2-3 novice tournaments before converting over entirely to K debating.

I have been coaching Public Forum for roughly 4 years.

Speed is fine by me, just be clear. Flow judge for the most part.

To put it simply, win the framework, the impact calculus, and the solvency debate. Big fan of turns, make use of them and be sure to explain and impact them adequately.

Every argument should have claim, warrant, and impact.

Pro teams, take time to explain the inherent need for your plan and your solvency.

Feel free to run whatever con strategy you want, be it on-case, DA's, or a combo of both. I prefer if you had your own counter-interpretation and voters, but if your strategy entails ceding to the pro's F/W then you better win it.

Updated for Princeton 2018

Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com

Debated for:

PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)

Coached for:

PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.

Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.

Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.

Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.

Literally do not care what you do in a round.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.

Speaker Points

I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

I'm Bill, a varsity PF debater & novice PF judge. I look forward to having you in my round. Here are some things I expect from a quality round of debate.

General Stuff About Me

I flow and I vote based on the flow. This flow does not include anything said during crossfire. If you want something in my flow, it better be in a speech.

Keep track of your own prep time. When time is up in a speech, finish your sentence, and that's it. If you continue to speak I'll deduct speaker points.

I will give oral feedback, time permitting. I will usually disclose, unless I actually do not know who won the round. I always write up a comprehensive and (hopefully) helpful RFD. Read the RFD even if you won, because there's always room to improve.

Don't be sexist, homophobic, etc. This goes without saying.

Finally, extensions are key. You will lose if you do not extend cards, no matter how strong your argument.

Cases

I like logically structured cases. Don't try to smush three contentions into one, and don't try to expand one argument into different subpoints. Break the case up where it's logical and easier to flow.

I really like niche and unique arguments, but you can easily win on a stock argument if you argue it well. This means lots of evidence to corroborate your claims, and clear links leading to an explicit terminal impact.

Please read cases with authority and confidence. Spread, and I'll drop you as fast as you're speaking. Public forum is pointless if most of the public wouldn't be able to understand half of what you're saying. I like appropriate emphasis and good eye contact. You're not just reading from a script, you're trying to convince me.

Rebuttal

I prefer an organized rebuttal that goes straight down the opponent's case. If you're doing something peculiar, that's fine, but please warn me before hand. Don't jump around their case unless you make it completely clear where you are in the case.

If I'm not able to get something down on my flow, it's as if you never said it. This means you need to signpost. I want to know a) which contention you're on and b) what specific claim, statistic, or argument that you're responding to.

Please don't be redundant. If you don't have enough substance to fill four minutes, then don't fill four minutes. If I stop typing, that means you should move on to your next point. The best rebuttals are those that keep me typing for all four minutes.

Know when a logical rebuttal is appropriate and when evidence and statistics are necessary. For example, some arguments can be completely shut down by a post hoc (correlation isn't causation) argument. For other arguments, you need to present contrary evidence, and explain why your evidence is better than theirs.

Summary

Ah, summary. I believe summary is by far the hardest speech in the round. A good summary does not address every point in rebuttal. A good summary PRIORITIZES certain arguments, EXPLAINS that prioritization, and then ARGUES. In other words, you need to establish your framework and explain the most important points in the round. Then, you need to argue that you've won that point.

Generally, after addressing framework, pick one main point of contention from their case and one point of contention from your case. Finally weigh impacts. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh for you, and I don't like doing that because then I feel like neither team deserves a win, because I have to complete the argument for you.

In other words, explaining why your evidence or impact is more valid than theirs is just as important as actually articulating your evidence. If both teams present opposing evidence, it is YOUR job to explain why your evidence is better than your opponents'.

The first speaking team may bring up new responses in their summary but not entirely new arguments. The second team may not bring up new responses (or arguments), because it does not leave enough time to the other team to respond.

Please extend any evidence that you want me to vote on. Extending evidence implicitly is fine, but it's less convincing than re-explaining the card.

Final Focus

FF is an updated summary. If you do voters in summary, do voters in final. If you go contention by contention in summary, go contention by contention in FF. I want the same general structure.

That said, your final focus must be responsive to your opponents' summary (or final focus). This means that you need to RE-PRIORITIZE the round and WEIGH (see below for how to weigh and how I like weighing done).

I like emphasis and clarity, but not redundancy. If you think you have not explained yourself clearly enough, feel free to re-explain and elaborate.

I will only consider arguments that are mentioned in your final focus. If it's not there, I'm not considering it when I decide who wins. If you are the second speaking team, please do not mention anything that you did not extend in summary. If you are the first speaking team, please do not mention anything you did not extend in rebuttal.

How do I weigh?

There are multiple ways to weigh. You can weigh on probability, scope, magnitude, and other quantities. If you can do probability analysis or multiply scope by magnitude in your head (correctly), you bet that your speaker points are going to be sky high.

I like probability analysis the most.

Anyway, point is, please weigh. It makes my job infinitely easier and it actually makes me want to vote for you! If you make me want to vote for you, you're doing something right, and your speaker points will reflect that.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

I debated PF for four years on both the state and national circuits for Wayland High School in Massachusetts and did pretty average. You should probably consider me a typical college student somewhat-tech judge, although I'm certainly not 100% tech; PF is not policy.

First summary does not need to extend defense. If there is no terminal offense at the end of the round I will flow the round to the first-speaking team.

Please do not be rude or discriminatory towards anyone - there's really no place for that in debate. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., you will get the lowest speaks I'm allowed to give and lose the round.

I don't flow cross-fire, but please be respectful and point out any concessions in the next speech.

Please weigh/meta-weigh/etc., and weigh as early as possible. I love weighing, and so should you! Please also signpost.

Please do not run any theory, Ks, etc. I will do my best to evaluate but since I am not trained in the intricacies of either, I will likely disregard it from the flow. Please strike me if this is an issue.

As for speaks, I default 28 and will increment 0.5 up/down as necessary.

+0.5 speaks for making me laugh. +1 (or more!) speaks if you bring me (good) food — especially boba.

Email me with any questions: nathanzhao@college.harvard.edu