UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

This is my first time judging LD Debate. I've previously judged middle school policy.

In a debate round I value the following:

- In speaking I value clarity over speed.

- Please connect your thoughts and points.

- Please warrant out your arguments.

Good luck to each and every one of you.

hey! I'm tech> truth- I prefer to vote on like true arguments (this excludes things like comparative analysis of economics- I'm more talking about things like "police do not have qualified immunity" that I wouldn't like to see in the round), but will vote on almost anything.

A: I will not vote on shitty impact turns like "oppression (of any kind for any reason) good". I will drop you, give you the minimum amount of speaker points available and tune you completely out and talk to your coach. This is shitty.

B: Please read my whole paradigm: I don't want to have to give a whole speech on my preferences before the round; it's a waste of time and I would rather just go ahead with the round.

C: I really don't like miscut cards/ evidence (it's wrong to do) and will lower your speaks because of it if you aren't already losing on it. (I will be checking evidence if it's called out/ if i feel fishy about it)

LAYERS

1. Theory

2. Topicality

3. K

4. Case

5. DA's, CP, etc.

THEORY STUFF

- Not a fan of friv theory, but not all theory is friv theory. if you run that shell, it's a perfcon, but unless your opponent points it out I'll vote on it, but won't really be happy abt it.

- Drop the arg is NOT AN RVI: when you tell me to/ win drop the arg, I'll stop evaluating theory and go to the next layer of the debate. If you say it's an RVI, I will not vote on it as an RVI. I'll just go to the second layer of the debate.

- If you collapse to a different layer in the 2n/ 2a I'll kick theory with you but PLEASE TELL ME TO DO SO (also really strategic move)

- Y’all: no 2nr/ 2ar theory unless you justify it earlier in the round. This is nasty please I am begging you.

- I'll evaluate the round however it goes, but if you're feeling "don't evaluate the round after the 1n/2nr/1ar", it's up to your opponent to say otherwise, not me.

-I HATE TRICKS it's not debate. Please don't run this in front of me.

TOPICALITY

- please god run this if the aff isn't topical*: I DISLIKE AFFS THAT PRETEND TO BE TOPICAL(YES I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBS AFF)

- I don't really buy that the neg has to be topical unless it's a cp, but prove me wrong.

- If you are neg and the aff violates t-plural, you can absorb that as part of your advocacy and I'll buy it.

*tell me why non t affs are harmful!! don't just assert that it's non t.

K's

- I really love k debate, feel free to run this in front of me- these are the rounds I like to judge.

- I’m fine with k debate on a lay circuit: I do like to hear good educational k's (setcol, securitization, orientalism, etc) because those truly open up a space for discussion. BUT PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR AUDIENCE. if the person you’re hitting is super new to debate then please don’t run like psyco or baudrillard if you’re just doing it bc they can’t answer it(i mean the justification should already be in the framework but...). THAT IS BAD, and I’ll most likely dock your speaks by .5 every time I feel you’re being a jerk just to win.

- on that note, as long as you can adapt to make the k educational, then huray!

- K affs are good, but I would like for them to be topicialish, but even if they aren't I'm still down.

- Perms are great AFF

CASE

- If you are creative with your case I will increase your speaks.

- Phil is good and I really love this style of debate and will be really happy if you run it but please know I'm decently well versed in philosophy and will be sad if you mess it up.

- Don't have a lot of specifics here.

- plans are cool too.

CPS, DA, ETC

- I don't care what you do here, just make sure you're doing a good job on why the cp is competitive

- Perms are great

-PICS =???????????????? but go wild if you think you can win that on both the theory and actual argument itself.

MISC

- since we are doing debate online for the most part I do want there to be chains.

- no I don't disclose speaks

- I don't flow cx.

-I'm cool with flex prep, just ask.

- TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE NECESSARY if you are running things that could be potentially harmful (narratives mainly, but you know what is considered violent/ needs a tw). Your words have meaning and weight to them, so be cautious of what you say and how it may impact others.

- (this again should be given but) I also will dock your speaks if you are a jerk to your opponent (or me??) during a speech or just say something way out of line.

- negs don't get perms: pointing out they are defending a singular (noun) and absorbing that as part of your advocacy is not a perm.

- Don't clip cards please I will 100% allow your opponent to stake the round on it and rightfully so.

- you are a jerk if you out spread someone who is obviously new/ not as experienced.

FOR PREFS

1: phil/ K debate

2: "LARP"

3: Theory

4- whatever: whatever else there is

strike: tricks and jerks

yeah. please don't bring me food.

emmadebate01@gmail.com

^ questions (put the subject line “debate question”) and chains (the file share thing sucks) (+3 speaker points if you make the subject funny)).

I am a parent judge who has judged both debate and speech events.

In debate:

I want you to show that you are listening to your opponent(s) and responding to their points. I am not a fan of spreading. I need to hear that you are making arguments that have contextual relevance to the debate you are in and not just rote responses for the general topic. If you tell me your opponent didn’t address your issue when they clearly did, I will mark that against you. I expect your closing to be strong and persuasive. Cross arguments should not be personal. You should give valid reasons why your framework is preferable and give reasons why your opponent’s framework is weaker.

In speech:

I'm looking for a fluid and consistent delivery. I want to see a story with a beginning, an arc, and an ending. I also want you to make a connection with your audience (me). I should not be distracted by other things you are doing. I want to be completely drawn into your story. That means I need to be able to hear and understand you, I should easily understand the sounds and other noises you put into your speech, and I that your examples make sense. Also, if you make a mistake, pick up and move on. Don't point it out to me or apologize. Assume I didn't notice or it didn't happen.

Pranay Ippagunta

Northview AI, IS

presumptionflipsneg@gmail.com

Thoughts

addendum before TOC: I am extremely bad for teams that rely on mainly ethos and are averse to LBL

Top

1—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but

your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

2—I valued agnostic judging when I was a debater so I will do my best to replicate that when I judge you.

My favorite judges when I debated in high school: Kevin Hirn, Kevin Sun, and Gio.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped

but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If

you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get

closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will

be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis

definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my

predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—Biggest influences: Matt Cekanor, Arnav Kashyap, Kevin Hirn, Giorgio Rabbini, Rafael Pierry, Josh

Harrington, David McDermott, Conner Shih.

Deciding Rounds

"I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:
A List the- arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B) Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative

or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will

strike these arguments off my flow.

C) Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only

include substantive argumentation but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the

2AR."

D) Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument

for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.” – Vikas Burugu

Framework

Update: I'm getting increasingly good for fairness. Lowers the burden on the negative team to win case

defense. I hold the line from the 1AR to the 2AR. When 2NCs extend fairness, 1AR drops most tricks like

fairness paradox, ballot PIC, subpoints on debate doesn't impact subjectivites. Very good for holding the

line.

Old:

1. No preference on what impact you go for. Some impacts require more case debating than others. For

example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense

and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to

spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and

spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the

affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season

are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-

practiced team always wins.
3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the

negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However,

there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA. "Most 2NRs assert TVA and

SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their

impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch

side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best."- Arnav Kashyap

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative

has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if

the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they

are less useful.

5.

A)Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the

ability to impact turn both the content of debate’s that would occur under the negative’s interpretation

AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will,

however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and

will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An

important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves

their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative

can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-

turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

"This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing

interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will

struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do

win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only

approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of

framework is violent."- Arnav Kashyap.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for

one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN

RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do

risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is

when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but

is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their

interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk

of your DAs.

Misc: live list

1--- Saying you're "X" identity position really loud does not constitute an argument.\

2---What is up with people saying impact turns to topicality means people will weaponize "title 9"

violations against framework tf.

K v Policy AFF

Ks do not disprove the desirability of plan action, those are DAs

I am finding this trend of the middle ground framework interpretation increasingly difficult to

comprehend. If the aff gets the plan, it is an auto aff win, if the neg wins framework, it’s usually a

negative win. Ks that go for links to the plan even with case turns are unstrategic because usually there’s

an uncontested affirmative. After reading this if you are like okay, we’ll read impact defense to, then

why are you even going for the K at that point, read a DA.

As you can tell, I will start my decision in these rounds on framework.

2ARs that don’t pick between clash and fairness and go for both usually fail
K v K Debates
1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v

K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link

debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power. 2. You need to pick something and defend it.

The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent

throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link

and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round

solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one,

you still have defensive arguments.

4. "This might sound terrible for the neg, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link

explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs

substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory

and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory."- Arnav. K affs

have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the

aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and

pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

My judging paradigm is critic of argument. I believe that tabula rasa is a myth as I cannot separate myself from my life experiences, my culture, and my debate training. However, I will listen to any argument that is made, and do my very best to judge it on its merit based on logic, reasoning, evidence, and grounding in a philosophy. You need not make major adjustments to me as I have no idea where you are in your training, your coach's goals, your goals, etc. In all, don't make any major changes just because I am sitting in the back of the room, or in cyberspace, with my trusty computer.

Some points of my paradigm refer to all formats of debate; some are format and circuit specific. I strive specify when a part of my judging approach refers to a particular format and the educational objects I perceive most of that format to emphasize.

Here are some facts you need to know about me:

1) BIO-- I started debating in my native town of Winston-Salem, NC, at Paisley High School (9th and 10th grade) during the first Nixon administration (1972). Policy debate (I was taught at Wake Forest camps) was the only form of debate then, and cards were actually literal cards. I did policy debate in senior high school (R.J.Reynolds); individual events in college (competed for UNC 1977-1979), and was a graduate assistant student in individual events at Nebraska in 1983-1984, but never during that time quit judging policy debate. I was director of forensics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where I was the director a comprehensive tournament (we offered everything) from 1984-2001, and learned NDT and CEDA coaching because of a high student demand. My second life as a coach (technically a volunteer adviser for a student run program) started at the University of North Georgia where, as we like to say in the Southeast, a group of students "up and formed a club" and asked me to be there adviser in 2006, with club recognition coming in 2007. UNG currently has debaters and speakers from all of its campuses, and we sponsor a Pi Kappa Delta chapter.. We host end of the semester free novice tournaments, host a state IE tournament run by Berry College each spring, and are actively involved in service learning activities with the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Courses related to debate and speech that I developed and teach at UNG include Public Speaking (forensics version), Argumentation and Debate, Persuasion and Argumentation, first and second year Practicum in Debate and Speech; and third and fourth year Practicum in Debate and Speech. All courses ultimately arose from a student initiative.

In short, I am as old as the hills am still enjoying debate and speech as I enter my 50th year in the activity in 2021-2022. Nevertheless, and importantly, I am not an "argument type or style bigot" and celebrate all forms of debating and approaches to argumentation in this world.

2) Topicality--I view this as a serious ethical charge against another team. To win it, you must win the following steps of this argument hands down: 1) establish and win a clear standard for Topicality (such as reasonability (skewed affirmative); best definition (skewed negatively) or better definition (more even but even neutrality being a good thing is debatable); 2) establish clearly and virtually undeniably that the affirmative has violated a key term, or terms, of the resolution; 3 [importantly] offer a synergistic model of what a topical position would be; and 4) why topicality is a voting issue for the negative.

In extreme cases, I will even consider T as a reverse voter, if affirmative shows that a negative topicality argument is frivolous.

3) Kritiks--love them. The best debates are link wars.

4) Kritiks involving performance--love them, but be careful you way you run them if you choose to do so. The art is rapidly evolving in all circuits of debate. If your performance (or any form of argument) is generic (run round after round regardless of topic),be sure that the link to the round is tight.

5) Speed--I will ask you to be clear if I'm having difficulty keeping up with your arguments. Keep in mind that unlike policy debating with fixed resolution, I cannot look at the cards after the round as I do in policy debate or fixed topic LD, if the format involves a topic which varies each round.

6) I like the stock issues approach when the wording is policy; but am open top hypo testing, counterfactuals, anything as long as you explain your positions and defend them successfully. Again, I try not to be an argument or style "bigot" but see the above on being a critic of argument (taught to me by the UNC debate coach Bill Balthrop) years ago. Look up his writings on it--IMHO they still apply today even though debate has changed much over the past five decades of my involvement in it prior to the 2020s.

7) Structure, evidence, logic, emotional appeal, the story dimension of debating--as Martha Stewart would say, good things.

8) "Generic" arguments and turns are okay, but play the link game effectively and you will more likely come out on top. We all like novel approaches.

9) Trichot) (for NPDA debating in college)--again not a bigot against trichot arguments, although the best debates IMHO are in policy oriented debates where we go the extra step in proving what works, or what is best philosophically justified (as in who bites and does not bite a kritik).

If this is a world format round, please adhere to the commonly practiced norms in that format. Ask if any details you like to before the round in cases where I'm indicated as the chief judge.

Regardless of the format, clear claims, evidence and examples to back the claims; and impacts are the fundamental key to winning arguments and debates; the the four-step refutation process: 1) let me know which argument you are on; 2) give me a counter-argument; 3) give me reasons and evidence to prefer your counter argument; and 4) give the impact--all four steps--are the keys to neutralizing or turning arguments, IMHO, regardless of debating format or type.

Clear, numbered voting issues, labeled such, in the last rebuttals (or last three min of negative rebuttal in any form of LD), are also good and a students ability to do this often makes a difference between winning and losing a ballot when the round is close.

Don't underestimate the ability of an old man to hear your arguments.

Above all, have fun and keep it all into perspective although we are all here to compete as a vehicle for learning.

I'm Griffin Richie (he/him). I graduated from Grady High School in Atlanta in 2021- I competed in LD on the local Georgia circuit and national circuit for three years, and in PF my senior year. I've broken at several TOC bid tournaments in LD and PF, won the 2020 GFCA Varsity State Championship in LD, and competed in NSDA Nats for 4 years, advancing in World Schools and PF. I'm new to judging.

Please put me on the email chain: griffin.richie@yale.edu. This should be set up before the round if possible. I'll boost speaks if there's an email chain in PF or traditional rounds.

This is my LD paradigm. It generally applies to PF and policy (if I'm judging that for some reason). My PF paradigm is at the bottom, as well as my thoughts on traditional debate.

T/L

I'll evaluate anything, as long as it is not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible. I'm tech>truth, but lower-quality arguments have a lower threshold of response.

You must have trigger warnings if you are talking about firsthand accounts of violence. Safety is important.

The affirmative must have a framing mechanism, whether it be in the traditional value-value criterion, standard, or ROB format. Absent an aff framework, I'm very comfortable voting off of any neg framing mechanism.

I'll read evidence if you ask me to, but that invites intervention. I'll really only do this if there are competing claims over warrants in key pieces of evidence.

If you're hitting a lay/traditional debater or novice, don't go lay- I think it's important for those debaters to be exposed to circuit debate, or they will never see the need to learn progressive strategies. However, if you go a little slower than usual, run strategies that are more accessible (basic phil, LARP), and are nice in cross, I will give you very high speaks.

You should disclose at TOC bid tournaments. I'm persuaded by disclosure theory, unless you're hitting a debater who clearly doesn't understand disclosure norms. I'll evaluate frivolous disclosure theory, but I would really rather not judge these rounds.

Cheat Sheet

LARP- 1

Phil- 2

Theory/T/Trix- 3

Ks- 4

Performance/Non T Affs- 5

LARP- I love a pure LARP/ util debate. If you plan on running this strategy, PLEASE weigh evidence quality, links, and impacts so you have a clear ballot story- if not, it will get messy. DA's, CP's, PIC's, Adv's, etc. are totally cool. 1 or 2 condo is fine, anything more is probably pushing it. Plans are fine, but the more specific it is, the more I'm persuaded by T.

Phil- I'm very comfortable with dense philosophical frameworks- I have an in-depth understanding of the common philosophies used (Kant, util, Rawls), and if you read a more nuanced philosophy, I've probably heard of it, but may not have a complete understanding of it- therefore, err on the side of overexplaining the warrants and implications. These debates get very messy when both sides just go for prerequisite or root cause claims, so weigh clearly and extend the syllogism throughout the round.

T/ Theory- Run it, I will vote off of it. I will not gut check theory or T, but the more frivolous it is, the more likely I will be to lower your speaks and have a lower threshold for responses. I'm not the best at evaluating theory, so clearly explain your abuse and ballot story. I'm very convinced by RVI's, especially on the Aff. Defaults- DTD, CI's, RVI's, Norm setting> In round abuse.

Trix- Cool with it. Don't make this debate messy (clearly explain the implications of spikes when you extend them), and don't be shady in CX. If you do either of those things, it'll make it hard for me to vote on trix, and if you're shady in CX, your speaks will suffer. I would prefer if there is clear delineation in the underview. The spikes K is a legitimate response, but I'm unpersuaded by 'spikes on top'.

Ks- Not a huge fan, but I have a basic understanding of many of the common lit bases (cap, afropess, etc.). If you really want to run a K, please do line-by-line and overexplain the warrants and implications, since I probably don't know the lit base that well. More nuanced links than "state bad" are definitely preferable.

Performance/ Non T Aff- You can run this if this is your main aff strat, but I'm not great at evaluating these rounds. I think the aff should be topical, and I'm very persuaded by framework- my main strat against Non T affs was 1 off framework. If you have a performance in the aff you need to explain why that generates offense and have some framework to filter that offense. Performance is probably not the best strategy with me in the back.

Lay/Traditional/Novice

I competed in local and regional lay/traditional tournaments for a large portion of my debate career. Totally cool evaluating this style. Values really aren't necessary. Generally whoever wins the value criterion wins the round, so make sure to do proper framework weighing. I don't really care if you sit/stand, etc., but make eye contact and be clear and passionate when you speak. I'll still vote off of the flow, but those elements are crucial for high speaks.

PF

I did this event for a year. Here are some preferences or must-have's for me:

[1] Anything that's in Final Focus MUST be in Summary. I give a little more leeway for new weighing in the first final focus, but it shouldn't be completely new.

[2] Framework isn't a must, but impact calculus is often necessary in the summary and final focus speeches to deliver a clear ballot story. If not, I may have to intervene.

[3] Extensions of contentions/ subpoints are a must in every speech. If you just do blippy line-by-line, I don't know what arguments you're going for, and it's extremely messy to evaluate.

[4] Please collapse to one or two key arguments in final focus, and preferably summary. It's not only strategically beneficial, but it leads to better clash and articulation of arguments.

[5] Not a fan of paraphrasing evidence at all. If it's particularly egregious, I'll lower speaks. I'm very persuaded by "hey judge, they didn't read actual evidence". Paraphrased evidence is only slightly better than analytics.

[6] I will evaluate 'Progressive PF' or whatever you want to call it, but because PF was designed to be accessible to all and explicitly bans certain arguments, I'd strongly prefer traditional arguments over Ks, Theory, etc. If you want to run these arguments, consider doing LD or policy, and I'll probably tank speaks.

Speaks

Spreading is fine, but send out a doc to both myself and your opponent. If you're not clear when you spread, that will make it very hard to evaluate arguments. Go about 70-80% of your top speed, especially because we are virtual.

I won't evaluate "Give me 30 speaks", because it's a terrible model for debate.

30- Best debater at the tournament

29.5-29.9- Top 5% - really strong performance

29-29.5- Top 10%- very, very good.

28.5-28.9- Top 25% - very solid- you'll probably break

28-28.5- Top 50%- solid- probably won't break

27-27.9- Average- needs improvement

26-26.9- Below average- needs a lot of work

20-25- Racist or offensive. I'm going to talk with your coach.

CX

1. Show your opponent respect- I'm totally cool with an aggressive CX, especially if your opponent is dodging questions, but know the line between aggressive and disrespectful/ demeaning. Your speaks will suffer if you cross the line.

2. CX is binding- if you make a concession in CX, you cannot try and sever out of it. That being said, I will only evaluate what happens in CX if it is brought up in your speech.

My bias is toward kritiks and meta-debate, but I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Line-by-line clash/analysis is essential; so are roadmaps/overviews, signposting, and clear articulation of voting issues.

I love a policy-making impact calculus vs. ballot-as-ethical-action debate -- if you critique the USFG simulation impact calculus framework and advocate for an ethical obligation framework and real-world transformative politics, I will very much want to vote for you. But I'll still vote on hypothetical impact calculus unless you win the debate about why I shouldn't. I love in-round, real-world impacts, but you have to defend your framework interpretation.

I was a cross-x speed debater in high school and college, and pretty much exclusively ran kritiks (my hs partner and I broke to state finals running a performative ecofeminist kritikal aff in Missouri of all places). UTNIF debate camp heavily influenced my style. I have a PhD in English Literature with an emphasis in critical theory and performance studies.

I still flow on paper. I'm fine with speed, just make sure to signpost.

No sexism, racism, homophobia, climate change denial, etc.

Email for evidence chain: kschaag[at]gmail.com

I’m a fourth year PF debater, so while I can handle speed (about a 7 or 8 on a 10 point scale) I truly believe that PF rounds should be able to be judged easily by anyone and that spreading is a tactic that has no place in PF. So PLEASE make sure that you are understandable. Impacts are necessary, especially in your last speeches. If you don’t give me a reason, I can’t weight that point for you. I reserve my right to check your cards if the evidence appears questionable. If you are caught lying about evidence, I will downvote you automatically. I appreciate signposting and roadmaps as I will be flowing but state this within your time limits. I’m not a fan of off time roadmaps. Make sure to keep your own time (ESPECIALLY PREP).

Please send all constructive speeches (1ac/1nc) to the valdostadocs.ld@gmail.com prior to giving the constructive speech.

First off congratulations to all competitors for making it this far, hats off. I used to do Speech and Debate as well and I own the title for POI Georgia State Champion for the 2019 season. I enjoy thrill filled speeches, showcase of compassion, and I enjoy watching the performer getting lost in their scenes. For the sake of PF, i rather debaters not spread, more of a traditional judge in that realm.

I'm a freshmen in college that's majoring in computer science and minoring in both software engineering and cyber security. I plan to intern for the CIA and hope to work for the FBI in cyber security.

I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for two years before graduating from Cherokee High School. I qualified for state in Lincoln-Douglas and in congressional debate twice and went to the National Speech and Debate tournament in Dallas this past summer. I debated at Harvard this past February. After graduating from high school, I was in the top 20 LD debaters in Georgia.

Within the round, do not spread. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow you. As for the cases - I prefer traditional, but I'm fine with progressive. Just make sure your case is logical and topical. I like and can follow most philosophy. I will judge on framework.

I do not buy policy arguments. I will not flow them.

After the round ends, I will always disclose - however, in doing so, I will deconstruct your cases to both help you and your opponent better your arguments from the round.

*********

How to win:

> Clearly tell me your value and value criterion.

> Use CX to your advantage.

> Clearly tell me why you should win/ are winning.

>Use your framework in your arguments.

>Be respectful the entire time. I will dock points for any disrespectful comments towards your opponent. No insults, yelling, pointing, or aggressive behavior. No sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/etc. arguments in round.

***********

Just have fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.