My personal debate experience is around BP and APDA formats of debate. I have judged and debated BP for 3 years and have done so in APDA for 1 year. I have been instructing PF for 1 years having judged in multiple ADL tournaments

Joey Amiel

Former Policy Debater at Rowland Hall, now do APDA at Bates College.

Debate is a game. Debate is educational. Debate should be fun.

Fairness is an internal link, not an impact.

Be nice. You are are not working on your fourth Nobel Prize. If this activity makes you angry, go do something else.

I am a Senior at Harvard. My debate experience consists of World Schools and British/American Parliamentary; I am an international student and have no experience debating Public Forum. Please don’t speak at an unreasonable pace, and please do be civil. I like evidence and warrants to be used and extended in the final summary.

I do not like teams who run kays. I do not know what kays are. But I have been told I do not like them.

I have judged extensively in both BP and WSDC, and have on occasion judged APDA. I believe strongly in conforming to the standards of the formats I judge, and therefore will approach WSDC slightly differently than I will BP. That said, there are a couple of commonalities.

I tend to view debating as an effort as persuasion. Imagine that there is a panel either of governmental officials, or senior officials at a company who are empowered to act on whatever policy or position you are advocating. The goal of a proposition team is to convince that they should do this. Central to such an effort is explaining why there is a problem which needs to be solved, but equally important is explaining what you expect them to do. It is all well and good to say that there is a principled obligation to do something, but if you cannot explain what they should do in order to fulfill such an obligation it can become unclear why it is important in the first place.

If this sounds like a burden on proposition, opposition teams should also actually explain why a policy should not be done, or why a principled statement is untrue. It is very easy for opposition teams to slip into the habit of poking holes in the proposition cases that were presented to them.

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

I've been debating for 6 years now, in high school I did Parliamentary and Public Forum in Oregon during and now I'm a debater for George Washington University on the American Parliamentary Debate Association. I use he/him/his pronouns.

General:

- I've got super limited online-judging experience, but a lot of in-person, so bare with me here

- Don't be snarky, don't be a jerk it absolutely doesn't help you and makes debate less fun for everyone

- I try to be as tabula rasa as I can be, especially in evidence-based formats

- I don't really care about speed but never did policy or circuit LD; if I or your opponents ask you to clear or slow down, do so immediately or your speaks are going to reflect that

- I will listen to whatever wild and zany K or theory you want to read in any format, but it's gonna be much harder to read a cap K in PF than in Policy, so it's in your best interests to avoid it

- With any theory/procedurals, you need to tell me exactly why my ballot is the key to solving the problem you point out, if you don't do this then I can't actually vote on theory over the rest of the flow

- If I don't understand the argument I'm also never gonna vote for it, sorry if I haven't read your favorite philosopher, use your best decision-making, explain things clearly, and only run arguments that you yourself can understand super clearly (I.E. I don't want to hear something a college kid was paid to write for you that you have only skimmed the night before at 2 am)

- Weighing your impacts is the most important thing you can do to get my ballot. If there was no weighing in the round, I'm going to be deferring to my own intuitions about what impacts are more compelling, and that isn't really fair to either team

- Having a card doesn't immediately give you the edge over someone else. If they provide off-the-cuff analytics as to why your card is misapplied/wrong/not important then you might be out of luck. Defending your evidence is half of the battle.

Feedback:

- I am beyond happy to give you feedback on the round/your speech/whatever if you email me at fletchercal777@gmail.com but a couple of conditions apply

- Don't come to me angry I dropped you, it's possible I made a wrong decision because everyone does sometimes, but trust me neither of us get anything out of this

- I'm a college kid, so sometimes I'm busy, just be mindful of that

PF:

- Not really sure that I depart from your average PF judge/debate on how I judge

- I'll actively look for things that are new in final focus, don't need to worry about that

- I'm not going to flow crossfire, but I will pay attention

- I'm not going to tell you what strategies you should use, but I can almost guarantee you that collapsing on one (maybe two) things is beneficial for you in a format with speeches as short as PF

- If there was highly contested evidence, I WILL call for it at the end of the round so have it ready and if you were wrong about it I'm just striking it from the flow, not auto-dropping you (unless its like super obvious that you were lying instead of just wrong about what it says/means)

- Explain your evidence, do not assume I've read Smith '02 or whatever the name is and then exclusively refer to the whole argument as Smith '02 for the rest of the round

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Walt Whitman High School from 2014 to 2018 on the national and local circuits. I qualified to the Tournament of Champions in 2017 and 2018. I am currently a senior at Harvard College.

I debated a bit of everything, but I have the most experience with theory, topicality, and framework debate.

The debates I enjoyed the most involved semi-topical affs about identity and/or oppression. Tricks were also fun. I love good (read: creative, well-researched) disads or counterplans, but I also love hearing k debates.

I need to hear clear, explicit extensions and weighing on every layer of the debate. Tell me where to vote and why I should vote there. Simple is better.

Basically, read anything in front of me, try not to be boring, definitely don’t be a jerk (be extra nice, because I am sensitive), and don’t spread too fast — I only judge at Harvard, and skipped 2021, so I haven't heard spreading in 2 years.

Email me at camillegcaldera@gmail.com or message me on Facebook with questions, cases, etc. (Yes, I want to be on email chains!)

Panicked Afterthought: I don't understand high theory/post-modern philosophy so maybe don't read that in front of me? I will do the absolute best I can to sift though it but no promises.

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

To begin with my background, I am a long time debate alumni, founder and president of my high school team as well as the last president of the CUNY Debate Society. I've been teaching debate for years. I've judged nearly everything under the sun in my near decade of experience, including PF, Parli (Parli in several forms), LD, Speech, Congress, Policy, and probably more. That being said, my "judging preferences" are rooted in my first and true love, parliamentary debate. For those of you who have done parliamentary, world's debate, and/or APDA/BP, you'll know parli debate emphasizes logical linkages far more than I'd argue it's more popular counterpart, PF, does. Accordingly, as do I. If you'd like that winning ballot from me, I cannot stress this enough: reason out your warrants and your impacts, and for the love of all that is good in this world, please please please weigh your arguments. This does NOT mean forego all else things, especially as they are emphasized in whichever format I am judging your round for (e.g. if this is a public forum round, of course you should use good, solid, well-cited evidence and it will dock you points if you don't have them). But the logic behind your arguments should also be sound and well developed (as in you should be able to explain them and how they clash with your opponents' arguments at length without citing more sources unnecessarily) and you are almost guaranteed to win your round if you are the only team weighing in the round. More likely that not, I will NOT drop your speaks for how you speak or your presentation (your content will always be 10000% more important to me than the presentation and I know a lot of us come from different backgrounds which means there is no "one-way" to be a good presenter. Make the effort though; I'll know if you're not making the effort). Also, on a lighter and semi-joking note, please don't spread unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. I can keep up, but I definitely will not want to.

E.j.chen256@gmail.com

I am an APDA debater who comes from a CT parli background. A few important notes

1) On equity. If you are going to make a clearly triggering argument (graphic descriptions of violence, sexual assault, suicide) please at the top of your speech say the type of argument you are planning on making, and give the opponents a time to opt out (online this might have to be in the chat), should a team opt out I have found that there is nearly always a way to make the argument without the triggering material, this usually looks like tweaking the impacting or finding an alternative way to prove the same claim. Just realize that the motion would not have been set if it could only be won with triggering arguments. If you have any questions at all regarding best practices for how to do an opt out, please feel free to ask me! Second, if you are going to make arguments about specific groups of people, act as if a member of that group is watching the round; sweeping generalizations, especially about vulnerable communities, while perhaps not malintentioned, can hurt people, as well as lack the nuance and rigor that we should strive for in this activity.

2) When crediting arguments and adjudicating clash I will always defer to the logic backing the statement, I do not give significant value to quotes from sources. Obviously specific knowledge you have on a topic is more than welcome (ie. France occupied the Ruhr region of Germany in 1923, Turkey is a member of NATO, the UK uses a Westminster political system, etc), and if used well in round, will be rewarded. Although I will keep an open mind to different viewpoints and arguments, please do not make me adjudicate arguments that are factually untrue.

3) On weighing and winning the round. I have judged rounds where one team wins far more arguments, but loses the round. This is because after I decide which side won each argument, I will then look into the weighing and impacting that each team did for me. Please impact and weigh your arguments, especially in rebuttal speeches, but really anywhere, I have not rarely seen teams weigh too much. If and only if there is no weighing or impacting from either team that has survived refutation, I will look for a combination of the least interventionist and most reasonable weighing, which may or may not be to your benefit. Tell me how to judge and weigh the round, and warrant it well, and you will not only win the debate, you will speak high.

4) On speed. I do not come from PF or Policy, although there is a fair amount of speed in my activity (220/230 WPM maximum). I will do my best to flow, but if I do not follow or write down your argument as a result that is on the speaker. Should people be too fast I may say 'clear', should I do this you do not need to stop, it is merely a signal that I cannot fully understand what you are saying. That being said, there are some situations where speaking fast is not merely unstrategic, but locks teams out of the round. If you notice that the team you are debating is newer, and not used to speed, I will award more speaker points if you make an effort to help your opponents engage with your arguments, and in egregious cases penalize speaks (but in the vast majority of these cases I will likely naturally give lower because there was less opposition to your arguments).

If you would like additional feedback after the round feel free to reach me (facebook messenger is the easiest!), or ask me before I leave at the end of the round and we can work something out.

Aside from that, I will judge the debate how you present it to me, do your best, and have a fun round!

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

Respect. If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're varsity debating a novice or a circuit debater debating a lay debater), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I like arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I want to judge engaging, educational rounds.)

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

1. It makes debate much less accessible;
2. It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
3. Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

1. Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
2. Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
3. If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

TLDR: I did PF in high school, I still debate in college. I want you to give me warrants and weigh A LOT, and if you want to run progressive stuff explain it well. My pronouns are she/her/hers, and if you make debate an inaccessible or hostile space your speaks will likely reflect that.

**please include me in your email chain: robinlgloss@gmail.com**

The long version, with my paradigms in decreasing order of significance:

I graduated in 2018 and did PF and Extemp for all four years of high school. I also some Policy, LD, and Congress. I now go to George Washington University and have been doing APDA for three years.

1. Your competitors are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect. I understand that debate rounds can be intense, but do your absolute best to make your round a safe and accessible place.
2. Reading a card with limited analysis is likely not enough to get me to vote on that evidence. Explain to me why it matters in the context of the debate and I will be much more likely to consider it. This is even more true if you take the time to weigh arguments, especially in the last half of the round.
3. I’m willing to hear and vote on progressive/theory arguments, but you’ll have more success with “drop the argument/contention/card” arguments than “drop the debater” unless something is particularly egregious. If you’re running these arguments, explain them well and don’t assume that I’m familiar with the argument.
4. If you want me to consider an argument in my decision, bring it up in final focus and explain why I should be voting on it. If you’re extending an argument, don’t just say “extend X argument” - explain to me why I should care about it and what it means in the context of the round.
5. I can deal with speed and jargon, but use them with discretion. If you’re using unnecessary speed or jargon it makes it less likely I will understand the argument as thoroughly as you want me to. If I need to I will unmute myself and say clear (or do what your preference is for me to express that), but don’t make me do that.
6. The first time you mention a card, try to use more than just “Author Year” to reference it - “Author, Year, Source” is ideal. This adds credibility to your evidence and ensures that I have the card flowed correctly the first time.

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Updated Jan 2020

tl;dr:
I'm tab and will vote on anything.

General Things:

I debated for four years in high school and continued onto 4 years of college debate. I don't frequently judge on the circuit, so I'd appreciate if you'd slow down. That being said, if I say “louder”, that means speak louder, not slow down. I won’t feel comfortable voting on something that I’m not sure if I heard.

I'm open to a wide variety of argumentative styles and approaches.

I’m tab. I’ll listen to almost anything you tell me, but if I genuinely feel uncomfortable (because you’re saying something racist/sexist/etc.) I’ll stop flowing.

Extensions:

I have an exceedingly low threshhold for extensions.

If something is dropped, I’ll grant you it if you just explicitly point it out.

I’m amenable to voting off of tricks, but if I don’t think the argument was flowable the first time, I’ll listen to responses in the NR/2AR. That being said, I think most arguments are flowable most of the time.

Framework and Ks:

I’m familiar with framework and I studied Philosophy at Harvard. Since leaving high school, I’ve become convinced by Sophia Caldera’s stance on comparing frameworks:

• The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.

I’m interested in well-fleshed out framework debates between framework and the K, as well as well-warranted theory interactions.

I don't know what "link harder into the K" means. Do you mean that your opponent has done or said something that indicates that there is a second, independently sufficient way in which they link into the K? Or do you mean that they're repeating the action that caused them to link into it in the first place? Am I supposed to judge differently if someone links "hard" into the K as opposed to "a moderate amount" or "just a little bit"? Be clear and specific.

Theory:

Slow down on interps. Please make clear arguments for whatever paradigm issues you want me to use on theory.

I have no preconceptions about whether fairness or education is more important.

For some reason, someone runs disclosure theory in front of me in probably half the rounds I judge. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I find that I often pick it up and speak it well. If it's well-executed and wins the round, I'll pick it up and speak it well. But I still don't like it. That probably tells you something about the kind of judge that I am.

Other:

I don’t like passive aggression in the CX. If you’re gonna critical of your opponent’s arguments, be open about it. If you are passive aggressive, it won’t affect your speaks or whether or not you win or lose, but I might be sarcastic during my RFD.

I do not care about your attire, accent, or school. Be respectful. But also feel free to indict or challenge what exactly "being respectful" means.

I pay attention during CX.

Speech times are probably the only "rule" I'll always enforce. I can be flexible on other things that other judges might take to be unchangeable. For example, you could convince me that you should be allowed to bring up something from the AC in the 2AR even if it wasn't extended in the 1AR, if it's well explained (in the AC, or maybe even the 1AR).

Have questions? Ask me.

There’s a rumor going around (started by me, here) that I’ll give you slightly higher speaks for referencing RuPaul’s Drag Race.

I competed in Parli and Extemp for Davis Senior High School (graduated 2017) and currently do American Parli and British Parli at Harvard. I've debated at least once or twice in every major format, though I've historically leaned towards traditional limited-prep events. I deeply appreciate when debaters bring me snacks.

If you have any questions/concerns/memes hit me up at benjaminhoffnerbrodsky@college.harvard.edu I'm also open to asking any paradigm-clarifying questions before round starts.

As an overview, I'm open to evaluating the debate you want to have and am open to voting on pretty much any type of argument. My speaks policy, however, does have some more complex preferences based on the type of debate I want to reward on the circuit -- all of that is explained below. My goal is to minimize judge intervention and bias as much as possible. That being said, I will intervene when necessary/I'm not told what to think/there is inadequate weighing. Similarly, because I'm a human/have done and watched PF I have some pretty well justified pre-conceived notions. With rare exceptions, I'm generally open to those being challenged but will default to them if unaddressed. An incomplete list of those prior assumptions is also below.

Speed: It is my preference that debaters not exceed a reasonable speed -- think 1.5x normal conversion speed -- though I will do my best to follow if debaters choose to exceed this. If you're talking so fast that I can't hear you I will say "clear" a maximum of two times as a request to slow down.

Theory: My background is in more traditional debate but I'm receptive to theory/K/performative arguments. That being said, I prefer debate that is topical and speaker points will reflect that difference unless I'm given persuasive reasons why theory is necessary in this case or it's really well executed.

Weighing: Please do it. More than you think you need to. If weighing goes uncontested I will use it even if it is unwarranted. If no weighing is given by either team I will use my intuition to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is most important. This is probably the easiest way to lose a round.

Final Focus: I take a strict view of the final focus: if the argument isn't in FF, I won't evaluate it.

Evidence: Evidence is pretty cool, you should use it. I have a strong preference for direct quotes over paraphrasing. I also take evidence misuse very seriously; if I find out that you have made up a card, added meaningful words/information to the card, "creatively" cut a card in a way that changes the meaning, or mis-cite a statistic, I will not hesitate to give a round loss and, for serious violations, report it to tab. 90% of the time the card you make up wasn't going to win you the round anyways, it's not worth it. I will call for cards at the end of the round if it is requested by a debater or if there is an obvious violation/the topic of evidence is disputed.

A few facts about the round that I take to be true unless told otherwise (but am open to contesting in some cases):

-Util is trutil

-Aff defends likely interpretation/implementation

-Neg defends squo

-Counter-advocacies aren't a real thing - you need to prove solvency/can't borrow aff fiat power

-Murder is bad/life is good

-Acquiring money is good

-Minimizing risk is good

-There is no God/Gods

-A good thing happening tomorrow is better than the same good thing happening a year from now (there is some discount factor/chance of death/randomness)

-A big good thing is better than a small good thing

-A small good thing is better than no good thing

-A good thing happening to n+1 people is better than a good thing happening to n people

-Solipsism is false

-The winner of a round is the team that best accesses the impacts that matter the most

-Fairness in debate is good

-Things that happen in the theoretical debate matter

-Education stemming from debate matters

Factors that impact speaker points but not necessarily the outcome of the round:

-Bringing me food

-Effective use of cross-fire

-Being excessively rude to your opponents

-Bold strategic decisions that payoff

-Sticking to topical arguments over theory

-Good word economy

-Creative turns and refutations

-Spicy but effective evidence indicts

-Clear and repeated weighing

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Background:

Debated for four years in Public Forum at Munster High School in Indiana. I won Indiana States twice, made late elim rounds at NSDA multiple years, and competed at the TOC, so I have experience with technical and lay debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard University, where I compete in parliamentary debate (mostly APDA).

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

Rebuttal:

I prefer to see frontlining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. However you want to do the split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum for second rebuttal is addressing terminal defense and turns. Tread lightly when reading DAs/new offense in 2nd rebuttal — I'm not completely opposed, but it's easy to be abusive when doing so (I will vote on abusive second rebuttal theory - see below)

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

PLEASE GIVE ME WEIGHING IN BOTH SPEECHES.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I've been reading a lot of K lit lately but proceed with caution and make sure to go slow with these arguments; I have seen from experience that PF typically does not permit enough time for these arguments.

For theory, I have experience with source, date, and abusive second rebuttal overviews theory shells. I have a low threshold for theory in PF, but I will vote on it if it's explained clearly and the abuse is legitimate.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly and if you tell me to read pages upon pages of a PDF I'm gonna be sad :(. As far as citations in case, I want to hear dates and author qualifications.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If you ask me to call for a card I 100% will, and I don't think it's interventionist for me to ask for something your opponents didn't. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I want to know where you are on the flow, and I'd prefer if you number your responses. You do not want me to think you undercovered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: I am cool with speed and am fairly confident I'll be able to flow you. However, it is in your best interest to slow down for tags and important responses/extensions. The reality is, the faster you speak, the less I get down. That being said, I do not want this to be something that excludes someone from the round. If you need your opponents to slow down, just say "clear." If you blatantly ignore the opposing team's request to slow down, I will significantly drop your speaks and most likely drop you :).

Aggression: Don't be a jerk so we can all have a good time.

Crossfire: I usually don't listen to crossfire that intently, so if there's an important concession, it has to be in a speech to go on the flow. Again, don't be a jerk.

Analytics: I like logical responses a lot. Good logic is going to beat bad evidence, and I will 100% evaluate something that makes sense even if it's not carded.

*Definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

I started debating my freshman year in high school, competing in LD debates in the WACFL debate league. I currently debate for the HCDU in APDA tournaments. I really enjoy debating and love to have a good time competing!

i wont micromanage your round but in the words of my friend:

"weigh

and don't give off-time roadmaps

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

- ozan ergungor

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

I debated all throughout middle school and high school. I attended Polytechnic High school in Pasadena, California. My main event was Parliamentary although I've also competed in World Schools. I taught Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary over the summer after my senior year of high school and first-year of college. I currently attend Harvard college and am an active member of the Harvard College Debating Union (HCDU).

As a debater, I appreciate rigorous argumentation and expect a lot of engagement with the other team's ideas.

I like off time road maps. I like overviews with voting mechanisms that are carried down the bench. I need weighing that directly engages with the other side's impacts. Don't try to win everything. Just show why the things you're winning matter more. Signpost so I know where to flow. I get annoyed by messy debates. If something was dropped by the other team, just tell me to extend it because it was dropped; I don't need you to retell me the argument/idea/piece of evidence/etc. Don't be mean to the other team because it will almost certainly hurt your speaker scores. Being assertive is not being mean; being condescending is mean.

Also, time yourself and your competitors because I will not.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

Hello! I'm a sophomore in college and have been a part of the Harvard College Debating Union for 2 years. I did 4 years of PF in high school.

I will flow your rounds, but please do not spread or speak quickly to try and cram things into your speeches. Quality over quantity, my friends. If you speak at a pace where your opponents and I simply can't understand you, it's a bad time for everyone involved.

Just because an article was published more recently or in a "more reputable journal/source" than another does not necessarily mean that it is more true or should be weighed more in my decision. If you revert to this as your sole rebuttal to dismiss your opponents' evidence, it makes me think you don't understand the evidence you're using.

On that note, just saying something is "empirically true" is not a rebuttal. Please elaborate if you're going to say this or I will be very sad.

Arguments must be present in both summary and final focus for me to vote on them.

Remember to have fun! Bonus points if you can make me laugh during your round. :)

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

tabs judge. be nice, please :).

give explicit voters and weighing. basically, summarize the key points and tell me why your team deserves to win the debate.

did LD for 2 years, PF for one. Currently debate for the Harvard College Debate Union

I'm 4 years out from circuit LD, and currently debate for Harvard.

Important: please please please have email chains sorted out before the round. Waiting for email chains is not fun and it slows down the tournament. My email is tejal_patwardhan [at] college.harvard.edu

Speed is fine, prefiat arguments are fine, and performances are fine. I'll basically vote on anything unless it's blatantly offensive. Pref me highly if you run Ks/plans, pref me fine if you run phil (if people still do that), and pref me the lowest if you run theory/spikes (unless the pool is bad--I almost exclusively read tricks my sophomore year so I will vote on this if it's really your thing). I've been out for a while, so I might not know what new abbreviations, jargon, or norms are--please explain these in your speech so I know what I'm voting for. An argument that is just an assertion without a warrant isn't an argument, even if it's dropped.

I like disclosure! Compiling your speech doc counts against your speech time! Please be kind and make me laugh!

I give nice speaks, especially if you weigh well and sit early.

If you have questions about my paradigm, just ask. Good luck!

Background: I debated traditional PF/LD in Ohio, graduated high school in 2017, and did a little bit of college parli.

I decide who wins the round based on who is winning the key arguments (I like clear, quantifiable impacts). I prefer evidence over logic, in the case where only one is provided - but ideally this is not the case. I am fairly open to out-of-the-box arguments or claims, but if you are doing something weird and your opponent clearly has no idea what is going on, do not be rude or condescending (this will result in me lowering speaks). I keep detailed notes, am fine with a quick conversational pace (not spreading). I don't care about style at all as long as I can tell what words you are saying. Feel free to ask before the round if you have any specific questions!

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Harrison HS (2012-2016)

Harvard University (2016-present)

Updated for Harvard 2020.

Email: smryan100@gmail.com

Hi!

I debated LD for four years at Harrison High School, and now do APDA in college.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, message me on Facebook or email me (you're also welcome to contact me after a round if you have questions).

General Things:

* For Harvard 2020: I have not judged since this tournament last year (and have been away from the circuit for awhile) so please do not go top speed / be aware that I may not be super up to date with any new league norms!!!!! *
I will listen to any arguments you want to make provided that they are well warranted and clearly explained to me.
I won’t vote on things that I don’t understand so if you’re running something confusing please make sure you slow down and give me a clear explanation of your case.
Also I am much more likely to vote on one well explained, weighed and warranted argument than a few one-liners.

Flashing and compiling documents won’t count as prep time but please don’t be ridiculous and abuse this.

In round behavior:
I don’t care how fast or slow you talk or whether you sit or stand.
I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you but if I have to continuously say clear and nothing changes then I won’t be able to flow your arguments and can’t vote on things that I haven’t flowed.
Also please slow down on author names and for tags.

Please be respectful to each other. Debate should be a space where everyone is comfortable to engage and participate and if I feel that someone is acting exclusionary / overtly rude I will drop speaks or the debater depending on the severity of the behavior.

Arguments:

I don't really care what kinds of arguments (Ks, plans, theory, phil) you run. Just explain them to me and keep in mind that I don't judge very often so I'm not especially familiar with the kinds of things people have been running recently.

Feel free to ask me questions before / after the round.

You can either spread flow or spread happiness. I like only one of them.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

git gud

I love debate! I have a background in traditional LD and currently participate in American Parliamentary.

I'm mostly tab besides a few preferences

For LD:

- I love value criterion debate, but don't think it's necessary for a round

- If you run anything non topical please explain why it matters in the round. I.e. don't just read a k and move on, read a k and then immediately tell me how it functions in the round.

- flex prep is fine if both debaters agree

For WSD

- please be clear with your warranting

- Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'

- Make sure you properly engage with clash. don't just summarize what you disagree on, analyze the purpose it plays in the round, like whether or not this links into any viable offense, for example.

- please keep your reply speeches organized so I'm also on board with the biggest issues in the round :)

For APDA

- team w/ most meme page rep picks up

- of the winning team the most frequent participant in doomthreads gets highest speaks

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. tell me and I will intervene as necessary.

I competed in PF and Extemp for Plano West and graduated in 2019.

***Please preflow!***

If you don’t paraphrase and read all cut cards in case, tell me and I will give both speakers +1 speaks. Paraphrasing in rebuttal is fine (unless you misconstrue the evidence!)

If both teams agree, I am willing to turn GCX into three extra minutes of prep for everyone.

Important Stuff:

1. Speaking fast is fine. I can flow spreading but you will receive significant speaker point hits and I will not like you.
2. Defense from 1st rebuttal sticks unless responded to; defense in 2nd rebuttal does not stick.
3. No independent contentions in rebuttal; DAs are fine.
4. I prefer all weighing to be set up in summary at the latest (there's 3 minutes now, use the extra minute for weighing). If you'd like to set up weighing before that, go for it (often strategic!). I will not evaluate new weighing in final focus unless it is the only way to resolve the round. If you don't weigh, I will intervene with a common-sense weighing mechanism (probability or magnitude). I will not presume neg unless there is zero offense in the round.
5. I do not strictly require 2nd rebuttal to respond to offense or defense from 1st rebuttal.
6. carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. “This is unwarranted” is an acceptable response. Don’t card dump.
7. I am unwilling to evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will ignore you.
8. I do not think frontlines are sufficient to serve as case extensions. You should extend not only your entire link chain + impact but also the warrants as to why your links/impacts are true.
9. I'll call for evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

Speaks: 27 - 30 unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If you have any questions, ask before round.

Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round. 

World Schools + British Parliamentary background