I debated Public Forum for 4 years in the SDIVSL and TFA circuits.

I'll just preempt all that follows by saying, DO THE WEIGHING!!!!!!!!!

I'm open to hearing and flowing any argument you want. Make sure all your arguments are warranted well so that if its close at the end I can weigh off warrants and not have to bring any outside analysis into the round, which I hate doing. I'm also open to kritiks, theory, etc. just make sure you run it, extend it, and somewhat explain it properly throughout the round.

The first rebuttal is pretty simple but when it comes to second rebuttal you MUST frontline turns. This will allow me to weigh args earlier in the round rather than having to wait till the second summary to hear any frontline to a turn. If there is contradicting evidence on the flow do the evidence weighing for me so that I know which piece of evidence to prefer.

This will be short, if it isn't extended in summary I'm NOT voting on it. I do buy into sticky defense though(see Final Focus below).

The final focus should almost mirror the summary speech. This should be where you really sell your narrative to me. I'll vote off of sticky defense, ie. a piece of defense that was brought up in the rebuttal and not necessarily extended in the summary, BUT ONLY if the other team tries to extend through ink.

If you guys don't do the weighing I'll be forced to do it for you, and if you get mad at the decision you can just blame yourself for that, not me. Just do the damn weighing and tell me why I should vote for you to ensure the fairest decision.

I'm pretty chill when it comes to speaks, but if I hear anything derogatory, racist, or exist it'll be an instant 25 and depending on the severity you might get dropped, there is no room for those things in debate.

As I said, I did PF but I can understand and flow relatively fast speaking. If I think you're speaking too fast, I'll say "slow" or something along those lines. If I say it once, and you still aren't clear I'll just put my pen down and stop flowing.

If you have any questions ask me before the round.

email: seungjohcho@gmail.com

PF paradigm:

I did PF for 4 years, and I did Big Questions for a few weeks at L C Anderson High School. I won both NSDA Nats and TFA State.

Just do whatever you planned on doing. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear. If you aren't good at spreading, first of all, you really shouldn't be doing it in PF, but if you really need to and you know you are bad at it, save yourself the L and flash me the doc you are reading. I value "tech over truth", in the sense that I will vote purely based on the ink on the flow, and I am willing to buy arguments that may not be true at all in the real world, as long as they were well articulated on the flow.

I don't flow cross fires at all, so unless you have an audience to please, I'd say just chill out a bit on cross fires. They won't really affect my decision. Also yes, I realize I was an aggressive debater myself, but if you're straight up being rude, I will dock speaks, which you really don't want from me because I generally give good speaks, so getting bad speaks from me will make you look even worse.

Make sure you weigh and you explain to me why you think you won the round by Final Focus, as I do not want to have to do that for you, especially on topics where I probably don't have any prior topic knowledge.

I will call for cards that you have asked me to call for, or cards that seem sketchy that are central to the round. In most cases, however, I will default to whatever the debaters tell me their cards say, so make sure you stay on top of that.

You do not have to extend defense if it is dropped. If it is addressed, however, I will obviously expect you to address it in speech if you are going for it.

Make sure you are sign posting.

Also please let me know where on the flow you will be starting your speech so that I can start flowing it well.

If you read frivolous theory, keep in mind that I probably will not weigh it unless it is completely dropped/inadequately responded to. I am also not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. That is not to say I won't evaluate it by default, but also run at your own risk.

And finally, everything you want me to vote on should be extended all the way to final focus. Even if it was dropped, if you do not extend it in final focus, I will not default you the win on an argument.

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask before the round!

LD Paradigm:

Read PF paradigm, should give you a sense of my debate background maybe how you should adapt.

Plans, CPs are all totally fine

Theory, Ks, more tech arguments are all good with me. Just do whatever you planned on doing.

Spreading is totally fine.

I made it to UIL LD State once, so post-round me as hard as you want, as long as it is educational.

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly. Please add me to the email chain here as well.

1. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm), as long as your opponents are. Debate the way that makes you feel most confident in your analytical skills

2. I am open to voting off of any arguments as long as they are fully warranted, fully extended, and non-discriminatory

3. Please do actually comparative weighing

4. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
5. If you extend an indict or think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
6. I am open to evaluating Ks, and will do so to the best of my ability. I prefer that you use theory to check back for in round abuse, and am very fine with paragraph theory
7. I presume first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise

Let me know if you have any questions

I debated PF at Westlake High School.

Constructive

- if your going to use a framework it must be warranted, and you'll need to extend the framework in every speech along with its warrant if I'm going to evaluate the round using it.

Rebuttal

- second rebuttal must frontline turns, but doesn't have to rebuild case (you should still be getting to the important parts of your case obviously, but I'm not going to drop your case if you don't get to every piece of defense).

- I love when a weighing mechanism is set up in rebuttal (if it's applicable to the round so far)

Summary

- if it's not said in summary, it's off my flow except for defense from rebuttal that was not responded to (sticky defense)

- in my opinion it's never too late in the round to call out misconstrued evidence, but indicts and evidence specific responses to need to come before first summary just like any other new response.

Final Focus

- collapse and weigh

- still need warranting, even if it's brief

General

- PLEASE WEIGH

- I'm not going to vote for you if you just tell me you win on timeframe or probability etc. Your weighing needs to be warranted, and it will help you even more if it's consistent (same weighing used in summary and FF).

- develop a narrative, if you and your partner appear to be on the same page it makes my choice a lot easier.

- Theory was not very big when I debated, but I understand the need for it when something offensive has happened in the round. If theory is conducive and topical to what has occured in the round I'm all for it and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability (if you get up and spread disclosure theory against an obviously way less experienced team your best case scenario is a low point win. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory especially when ran by big schools; in my experience judging and debating I've only ever seen big schools run it who a. have the resources to prep out disclosed cases and b. are typically just using the fact that not all PF debaters know theory well enough to stand a chance, and I dislike that.)

- I'll do my best to evaluate more progressive arguments but I'd prefer that they're topical (plans, CPs, Ks, etc) but you need to do a good job of explaining/warranting them since I never debated them. Again, it should be topical to the round/topic.

Core Judging Philosophy:

As a Public Forum judge I am partial to tech debate, therefore what happens or doesn't happen on the flow is the preferred basis for my decision. I find the query of my being “tech over truth” or “truth over tech” to be a reductionist question. I will vote on a clean argument on the flow before I vote on a more realistic yet poorly extended argument. Proper signposting can be a valuable tool in this endeavor.

I will avoid using prior my knowledge or experience on a topic, or from previous rounds, to come to a decision. My decisions are derived from the information provided in the round I am judging only. A consistent and clear narrative will help you when the flow is muddled.

Speed:
I am fine with speed if you have good enunciation and volume. If you are capable of “varsity LD level” spreading then let me know that pre-round. If you are concerned about being too fast or unclear to be understood by me then you are also welcome to add me to an email chain for me to follow/understand you using your documents (if you choose to do this you must also include your opponent).

Weighing:Weighing in the final speeches is extremely important. I want a clear, quantifiable, and comparative weighing of impacts. If I have to calculate for myself which impact is more significant then you may not find the result you are looking for and making a judge do the work of weighing is not something that most judges want to be burdened with. Organizing the final focus speech by voters is not required but can be very helpful to a judge.

Opinions:
I like to see well-warranted evidence comparison (evidence weighing if you will). I also will vote on evidence over analytics without exception. If you find yourself stating opinions and analysis that are your own without evidence, then you are at risk of losing the round, no matter how logical your statement may be.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points range from 25-30. Only speeches I deem to be highly offensive or abusive will be given less than 27. In my four years of judging this has yet to happen, don’t be my first. I do not deduct for more aggressive debate styles, so long as teams are evenly matched opponents and there is nothing overtly abusive about the exchanges.

Other Notations: Time yourselves and your opponents, I want my focus to be on the round. Timing exception being if I am judging a Novice team who would like me to assist.

Concise road maps before the speeches following constructive are appreciated.

I will not flow crossfire/CX. If you get an important concession in cross bring it up in your next speech if you want me to consider it.

Framework and impact framing is preferred, and when well executed will often be an important consideration in my final decision. If no framing is present then I will evaluate the round using a cost-benefit analysis of comparative worlds, as is standard.

Howdy

If you want further elaboration I am happy to talk about any part of the paradigm in greater detail or clarify any misunderstandings.

Biographical Information

I am a freshman History major also participating in the LAH progarm at UT (Austin). I attended L.C. Anderson High School for all four years, debating for Anderson the last three years. I qualified in PF to TFA state all three years, TOC Gold junior year, and NSDA Nationals senior year.

Core Judging Philosophy

As a judge I am partial to tech debate, and what happens or doesn't happen on the flow will be the basis of my decision. While I don’t love the drastic trade-off implied by the phrase “tech over truth” I will vote on a clean argument on the flow before I vote on a more realistic yet poorly extended argument. This means that proper signposting is incredibly important. For those who are new or unfamiliar: you need to tell me where you are on the flow so I can follow you (ex: contention 1, sub point B, the Mearsheimer evidence). I aim to judge every round tabula rasa (clean slate), and will do my best to avoid using prior knowledge or experience to come to a decision. I will use what information you give me in round to judicate, nothing more. I am generally more concerned with the line-by-line than the big picture, but a consistent/clear narrative will definitely help you when the flow is muddled. Framework and impact framing is welcome, and in some situations can create incredibly clean and easy paths to my ballot (if you are winning and extending offense under an uncontested framework for example). If no framing is present I will evaluate the round using a cost-benefit analysis of comparative worlds, as is standard.

Speed/Spreading

Being comfortable with tech debate I am okay with speed, if the spreading is unclear I will warn you once by saying “clear” and if it is still not clear I will likely stop flowing. If you are concerned about your spreading being too fast or unclear for me to understand that means you haven’t drilled enough yet and shouldn’t be doing it in round. If I can comprehend Anna Myers in round then I should be able to understand you if your technique is good. You are also welcome to add me to an email chain or flash me documents if it helps me follow/understand you (if you choose to do this you must also include your opponent).

Rebuttal

I am fine with offensive overviews/offcase positions in rebuttal, although if it comes in 2nd rebuttal I will question fairness and allow a lower threshold for what is “passable” defense on the argument later in the round. The second speaking team is not required to frontline or rebuild, but all unaddressed defense will carry over as “sticky” defense until responded to. If you want an easier summary then the second rebuttal should frontline, but the oft cited “50/50 split” is not necessary. Lastly, pay attention to the responses you read in rebuttal, don’t de-link or take away the uniqueness of your own turns.

Back Half of the Round

The summary and final focus speeches must collapse, you cannot adequately defend or extend a complete link and impact story at multiple points on the flow. Weighing in the final speeches is also paramount, without comparative weighing of impacts I will have to decide for myself which impact is more significant—not something that you want. I want you to tell me why your arguments matter more, making sure that the extension is free of uncontested ink on the flow (in other words do not flow through ink I will not grant you the argument). Organizing the final focus speech by voting issues can be helpful, but do not ignore the flow even in the final speech.

Theory/Kritiques

I understand the fast growing trend of using progressive argumentation from LD and CX in PF. That being said, I would rather not have to vote on theory. If I’m left no option other than having to evaluate it, disclosure or paraphrase bad theory is more welcome than abusive frivolous theory like the “plastic water bottle bad” theory read in LD outrounds of the 2019 TFA State Tournament. Personally, I find Ks more engaging/interesting than theory, but when running a K a good understanding and articulation of the critical literature underpinning the argument is necessary for me to feel like voting for you. These complex arguments should be fleshed out fully and executed properly. Which, considering the speech times in public forum, often means disregarding substance so you can run the off-case position or critical argument correctly. Ultimately, if you run theory or a Kritik poorly I will think you’re just fishing for easy wins—something I don’t support or appreciate.

Other Opinions

I like to see well-warranted evidence comparison (evidence weighing if you will). Debates usually devolve into he says/she says with two conflicting pieces of evidence creating an impasse that is difficult to resolve for the judge, try and avoid this. I usually give generous speaker points, as long as you are polite you will get high speaks. Time yourselves and your opponents, if it’s obvious that you are going over time I will stop flowing and cease to listen. Concise road maps before the speeches following constructive are appreciated. When reading a link turn make sure and extend the co-opted impact from your opponent's argument. I will not flow crossfire/CX. If you get an important concession in cross bring it up in your next speech if you want me to consider it. Additionally, please try and be respectful to one another. I obviously did debate so I get how things easily become heated but try and be civil it's easier to listen to.

Background:

I did Public Forum for 3 years at Vista Ridge High School, and a few Policy tournaments but I doubt it really counts. I debated on the national and local circuit, qualifying for TFA State my Junior and Senior years of High School. I am currently a Sophomore at St. Edward's University in Austin.

General:

I am not tolerant of any sexism, racism, or anything of derogatory nature and my ballot will reflect that.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. AND SIGNPOST. I am more tabula rasa than not.

Also, keep track of prep yourself I am too lazy to do it.

I generally listen to cross-fire but I don't decide the round on it.

Please be kind to one another and do not talk over each other. Debate is a game of intellect, not to shout over each other as if you were in a bar fight. (this will also get your speaks docked)

If you have a good joke that is tasteful and in context, go for it.

Speed:

I think that you can go at a fast pace as long as I can understand you, and I will just say clear if I can't but this does not mean spreading. Please do not spread, there's no point and it does not make you win more round in the long run. All in all, just be clear. I am not a judge that overestimates their ability to comprehend speed, I would rather everyone be in understanding of what is happening rather than going at warp speed.

LD - If you flash me everything you read, you go as fast as you want. If there are off-screen analytics being made I would slow down a bit.

Types of Arguments:

Keep in mind I did PF, not LD or CX. Run theory at your own risk. I did PF when they were running disclosure, I will listen to it but your voters or RVI's have to be pretty compelling for me to give you a round win, but it can be done. Other theory arguments like T's or K's are usually not done correctly and just make things messy. Also, running these arguments because the opponent doesn't know what theory is, is exclusionary and not cool.

I also do not like weird squirrely arguments to throw the opponents off, it just isn't needed but if its clever and in your constructive than more power to you.

The Split:

I think the second rebuttal should always frontline/address the first rebuttal. That is all.

Summary:

Defense is NOT sticky.

Given that you have a 3-minute summary, there better be some good condensing in there.

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like it when teams collapse well in these speeches. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus.

Evidence:

Truthful paraphrasing > miscut cards.

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just not educational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

Bracketing in your card is bad. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Amar continues" and you add "[Yale Law professor Akhil Reed] Amar continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Card dumps ≠ warrants, pls explain your arguments.

Speaker Points:

If you speak clearly and your in-round strategy is good, don't worry about speaker points. I generally don't give below 28 but it takes a good amount to get a 30.

I'll flow but it has been a while since I debated so keep that in mind.

I debated PF until I graduated in 2017. I am cool with any arguments however you need to really explain K's and Theory to me for me to vote on it (only because I don't remember how they operate not because I have anything against them).

FAQ:

Defense is sticky

Offense needs to be in every speech including floating offense like turns

2nd rebuttal does not need to defend

I'm good with speed but on this zoom platform it can be hard to hear so keep that in mind

Speaker points: I know some people ask how to get high speaks so I'll throw this in here. I base my speaks on strategy. If you come in with a plan on how you want to win the round and execute that plan I'll reward you.

I know this does not cover everything so ask me anything you want.

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

LC Anderson '19

Cornell '23

Conflicts: Westwood

--- update for TOC 2022 ---

I have not been involved in the debate community since the summer of 2019 (i.e. right after graduating high school), and I understand that PF has changed a lot since then. I don't know how to evaluate theory shells or Ks; this type of stuff was just starting to become relevant in PF when I was graduating, and I don't think that's what PF is meant to be regardless. If there's abuse in the round, just give a warrant for it. I'm cool with DAs, though, if you frame them as offensive overviews and bring them up in your rebuttals.

I'm not coaching or cutting cards for anybody, so I don't know this topic. Just explain your arguments thoroughly and extend the entire link chain when you're collapsing. Also, define specific terminology because if I don't know what you're talking about, it's going to be hard for me understand your narrative and vote for you.

--- General ---

I'll vote off the strongest link chain of the most meta-weighed and terminalized impact. Meta-weighing means you have to weigh your impact against your opponent's weighing. If you're saying you outweigh on magnitude and your opponent's saying they outweigh on probability, someone has to give a warrant for which one is more important.

Tech > truth. I'll believe anything that's warranted unless it's argued against or the evidence is misconstrued.

Defense doesn't stick since summaries are 3 mins long. There shouldn't be anything new in FF unless it's responding to something new brought up in the speech before.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

I debated Public Forum for the Bronx High School of Science for four years and was co-captain of my the team during my senior year.

I will vote off of the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact. If you don't weigh, I'll be forced to intervene based on what I personally value most. I will only vote off of *full* extensions that clearly explain the warranting on both the link and the impact.

I believe Public Forum was made to be an accessible activity, so I prefer a more conversational pace that covers the entire flow. Personally, I think that word economy is preferable to spreading a bunch of fluff. However, I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will hurt your speaks.

Please sign-post and give me a brief off-time road map to tell me what you'll be covering on the flow (e.g. "It's going to be my case then their case.")

Mitigatory defense is sticky but terminal defense is not.

I love frontlining; I hate extending through ink.

Please treat your opponents with respect. We are all here to learn and have a fun time. If you run bigoted arguments or say bigoted things, I will drop you. If you lie about evidence, I will drop you. Please give trigger warnings if you ware running sensitive content.

Please feel free to ask me about any questions or concerns you may have before the round begins.

I competed in public forum debate for 3 years thus I know all the ins and outs. A few ground rules for me are that second rebuttal must respond to first, no spreading (if you read so fast I can't understand I'm putting my pen down and whatever you say won't be taken into account for the ballot), each cross fire should be used constructively and shouldn't be you just giving a speech (answer your opponents question and move on), summary and FF should be clearly warranted or else you're just telling me things and I don't want to go through and find warrants for them, if you read theory I will drop you (this is public forum not LD or CX debate the topic and don't get sidetracked like that). Both sides overall need to be articulating to me why they are winning throughout the round and sign post the whole time, I don't want to sit there going through the flow trying to figure out where you're jumping to next. For a final overall point I am largely truth over tech, thus if you provide me an argument and truly convince me with viable evidence I'm going to be voting for you but if I do have to weigh a round over tech I will.

Hi! I did PF at Westlake High School until 2019, I compete in APDA in college now. Please treat me as a flay judge (ie., I know the format of PF, but I probably won't be too familiar with the topic and I'm not very involved on the circuit now). If you have specific technical questions, feel free to ask me before round!

Please read trigger warnings for cases that include sensitive topics, and tell me before round or email me (rmli@uchicago.edu) if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more fun or safe for you.

1. Preflow before the round begins. Please do not sit in the round preflowing while making everyone else wait for you.

2. Defense sticks. Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus, so collapse and weigh strategically (obviously, right?)

3. Start weighing early. I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus absent any weighing done by either team at any other point in the round.

4. Evidence is meaningless to me if unwarranted. I am very receptive to logical warrants and analysis.

5. I hope this paradigm reflects the style of debate I prefer: concise arguments, specificity, and coherent organization.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round begins.

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years and did PF for all of those years. My partner and I qualified to state and went to the Octafinals round our senior year.

I'm pretty much okay with everything, within reason of course. I would say that I lean towards more of the "traditional" version of PF (I'm not huge on theory in PF as I don't think there is enough time to flesh out the arguments). I will vote on almost anything as long as it is extended and explained properly through every speech.

I am for the most part tech/truth unless the argument is clearly false (i.e. climate change doesn't exist).

Speed

I can handle speed but don't think it is a necessity to win you the round. I value quality of arguments over quantity (i.e. a couple well-explained arguments go farther than a bunch of blippy arguments dumped on a case).

Extensions

You MUST extend arguments through EVERY speech if you plan to go for them. I will not evaluate arguments that are dropped in summary in the final focus. And likewise, if they are not in the final focus, I will not evaluate them.

Rebuttal

If you are 1st speaking team, you don’t need to go over your case (use the 4 minutes to make responses on your opponents’ case).

If you are 2nd speaking team, you MUST go back over you case and respond to the arguments made on your case (at least to cover any offense the other team may get from your case--i.e. respond to turns please).

Summary/Final Focus

Your final two speeches should mirror each other. If I can't see a clear ballot story, it will be hard for me to evaluate arguments.

You need to do all of the weighing for me. If not, I will have to decide for myself which may or may not go in your favor so comparative analysis is ESSENTIAL to telling a clear ballot story.

Please use weighing mechanisms (structure should also help with this).

Speaker Points

I will for the most part stay in the 28-30 range. 27s are possible. Anything below that often means you were overly rude or something in round. Speaks should be explained on the ballot.

General

Anything that is excessively rude or offensive will automatically drop you the round.

Biggest thing for me is to be courteous to your opponents and try to make the debate space accessible to everyone. Debate is an educational activity and should be kept as such.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before round to clarify anything!!

Edit for pwsh 2021: Please make an effort to clearly say what argument you're responding to. Don't just throw out a line and expect me to instantly place it in the context of the round and the argument you want. I am very dumb and slow.

** PF Paradigm**

I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail

Short stuff

1. Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.

2. Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.

3. Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.

4. Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me where to flow stuff

5. I am not perfect. sorry if I mess up

Evidence

• Pull up evidence quickly.

1st summary/final focus

• 1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.

• 1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.

• 1st summary doesn’t need to weigh.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.

2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus

• 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.

• No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.

• Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.

• 2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.

• I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.

Extensions

• Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.

• My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.

• Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.

Disclosure

• If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +.5 speaker points.

• I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.

• Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.

Theory

• I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.

• Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.

• If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.

• Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.

Other Progressive Args

• I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.

Speed

• I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed (edit: not so sure how true this is anymore), but if you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.

• If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.

• Send speech docs if you’re going fast.

• If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.

Weighing

• I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing earlier in the round.

Cross

• Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.

Speaks

• My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)

Misc.

• Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.

• Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.

• If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.

• If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.

• Pause when you switch flows please!!

• Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.

I did PF debate for two years at Westlake High School.

-In order to make it easier for you to win my ballot, you must WEIGH. I prefer that this weighing starts in summary and then is fleshed out in final focus.

-The second rebuttal does not need to frontline the entire first rebuttal, but at the very least it should respond to turns.

-If an argument is dropped in summary then it cannot be brought back up in final focus and is off my flow.

-Summary and Final Focus must collapse. You should not go for every argument on your flow even if you feel like you are winning most of them. I prefer a fleshed out link chain over multiple badly extended arguments.

-I will not vote off of any theory/K's/plans/counterplans.

-Warrant out your arguments, and do not extend through ink.

-Lastly, be nice to your partner and opponents during round otherwise I will dock your speaks.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School.

Constructives:

I'll flow any argument, but keep in mind that I am a PFer and have comparatively less knowledge regarding plans, CPs, Ks, etc so if you are running one, make sure it is well explained. Moreover, feel free to run theory but check your privilege (see speaks section).

Rebuttal:

Second rebuttal has to frontline turns (sorry if this isn't the case where you're from, Texas has ingrained it in me). However, second rebuttal does not have to extend case offense. Weighing as early as possible gives you an edge on my ballot, so I would recommend doing it in this speech.

Summary:

Anything not in summary is gone at this point. The exception is defense from rebuttal (sticky only for first summary). That can be brought up in final focus if your opponents try to extend through ink in second summary.

Final Focus

Kind of goes without saying, but anything in ff had to have been in summary. Exception is evidence abuse (you call for a card before ff and think it's misconstrued).

Things that will dock your speaks:

-reading policy-style arguments against an obviously much less experienced team

-speaking super fast against an obviously much less experienced team (otherwise I don't care, go as fast as you want)

-reading disclosure theory against an obviously small/not nat-circuit school

-being rude in cross (especially if a guy is talking down/being a rude to a girl)

-reading straight off your computer

-reading in a monotone voice

-taking too long to pull up evidence when you're asked for it

-card dumping in rebuttal without any analysis (you're welcome, Jason)

Things that will increase your speaks

-including the warrant and impact in each extension

-signposting

-weighinggggg

-having cohesive narratives across speeches

-tasteful topic-related jokes/puns

-my subjective belief that you should be in outrounds

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Plano West Senior High School ’18; 3 years of PF, 1 LD, 4 FX, 1 DI

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted.

I tend to give many non-verbal cues -- use that to your advantage!

I'll call for evidence if you tell me to, and sometimes if I'm genuinely curious.

In terms of theory or non-topical positions, I will evaluate on the basis of reasonability unless convinced otherwise. That is, since I believe these function on a different plane of debate than substance, you are forcing me to intervene and I will reject arguments that I find to be unreasonable. Debating about how debate should be done is like making me be a referee without a rulebook to reference – I will be forced to intervene.

If both sides have offense (including turns) and no weighing is done, I will have to intervene, or if both do weighing and no meta-weighing (i.e. why one weighing mechanism is better than the other) then I will also intervene. In that instance, my preferences are as follows: Education > Fairness > Moral Principles > Pre-requisite/Internal-link (considering extent) > Irreversibility > Probability/Strength of Link > Timeframe > Magnitude > Scope > Triple Beam Balance.

Speaks are given as a function of how palatable you are to the average person, expect average 28.5.

I believe the purpose of debate is for the furtherance of education and so:

1) Truth-testing not policy action (no fiat and default neg)

2) Defense always sticks, i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized

3) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped -- 2nd Rebuttal must respond to turns

4) I vote off the contextualized truth in the round -- to persuade me is to persuade even outside of debate structure

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (zJerryYang@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.