I have limited technical experience with Public Forum Debate and can be considered a lay judge. Thus, you should debate accordingly.

1. Go slow, or at the very least, keep your speed at an acceptable pace. Otherwise, I may not catch everything you say or I may not understand it.

2. Don't use debate-y jargon. If you think I won't understand it, give it in lay terms.

3. Prove to me why your argument is true and why it matters. If I only get one or the other, it will be hard for me to evaluate. Give me very clear warranting and reasoning alongside solid evidence behind any claims made. It shouldn't be confusing for a lay judge like me to follow.

4. Having a clear narrative throughout every speech during the round is very important to me, especially in summary and final focus.

5. Be organized and let me know what argument you're talking about as you move along, especially in the last two speeches.

6. Be courteous in crossfire and don't let it turn into a yelling match.

tl;dr: Speak slowly and clearly in layman terms. Be organized and provide clear reasoning, evidence, and a clean narrative. This should be pretty intuitive.

Other questions:

1. I don't care if the second rebuttal responds or doesn't respond to attacks made in the first rebuttal. However, I do wish to see relevant responses extended in the first summary, especially if they grant you offense or are heavily contentious in the debate.

2. I don't evaluate theory or anything considered progressive. Which kind of makes sense.

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.

A debate is not won by the fastest talker or the one who quotes the most evidence cards. It is won through argument. Ultimately, I decide the winner as one would decide a civil lawsuit--by the preponderance of the evidence. This means you must quantify, quantify, quantify. Both sides must quantify the degree of benefit from their respective plans and the degree of harm due to either the absence of their plan or the implementation of the other side's plan. In the end, the team that quantifies the most compellingly and effectively will win the debate.

Intro/Background - My name is Ryan Debish and I'm a member of the Forensics program at TCU competing in Parliamentary debate, extemp, and impromptu. I also debated CX and Parli in high school where I finished as a California state quarter-finalist in parli, so I'm fairly well versed in debate theory and procedures.

Debate

Speed - (If this is CX/LD or any other prepped debate) I'm fine with speed, but I'm not going to call cards at the end of the round to reconstruct your argument so make sure your speed is intelligible. (If this is Parli or any other limited prep debate) I won't vote you down for speed, but I'll most likely nuke your speaks as spreading in parli typically sounds bad. Remember if I can't hear your argument, I can't flow it, and then I can't vote on it.

K's - I'm fine with Kritiks, debate is an educational institution and K's have a valid position within it, so I am completely open to voting for a well thought out and delivered K.

Tricks - I will not vote based on tricks, they reduce the educational value of the round and thus I will not consider them on the flow.

Impacts - I'm generally hesitant to vote for high magnitude, low probability impacts i.e extinction. If you're going to go for these, you're going to need significant warrant. If it feels 50/50 on the flow between a low probability impact and a medium probability one, I'll go with the medium impact argument every time.

Tabula Rasa - I believe true tabula rasa does not exist. Everyone has their inherent biases, including myself. With that in mind, the flow sheet starts blank every round and I will vote based on the flow. I think an example I once read on another judge's paradigm illustrates my position well: "If both sides agree that Japan is a large West African nation, then I'll judge it as such. But if one side claims it's an Island off the East Coast of Asia, and the other side claims it is a large West African Nation, I will prefer the side that claims it's an island."

Style/Preferences - I'd like to be the judge I would want to see in round as a competitor. I will flow and weigh your arguments at the end of the round and determine a winner based off the arguments and impacts on my flow. "On my flow" being the key word. Please stay organized and signpost well so I can follow your claims. Clash is very important to me, so please directly engage with your opponents arguments. Please give me reasons (impacts) to vote on at the end of the round and really focus on weighing them against the alternative. Overall, have fun and make the round educational and respectful.

Questions - If you have any other questions about my style or preferences, I will be happy to answer them before the start of the round.

Speech/IE's

Timing - I will provide hand signals for timing, and I do expect you to be on time in your speech (I won't mark you down for finishing a sentence after time).

Style - When I vote I give content a much higher priority over speaking ability, especially in more evidence based events like Extemp. Your ability to deliver the speech in an engaging and concise manner is still incredibly important, but what your saying will be more important to me than how you're saying it.

Questions - If you have any other questions about my style or preferences, I will be happy to answer them before the start of the round.

I’m a former CX and Parliamentary debater and current coach for the speech and debate team at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas with 13 years of experience as a competitor, judge, and coach.

Talk pretty. Don't suck.

I'm a strict content judge; I don't care about the fancy metadebate (K's, Faux-topicality arguments, etc). Debate the topic and do it well.

Nice, clean, intelligent debate is why we do this, so that's what I'm looking for. There is a distinct difference between talking fast and Spreading. Speaking fast may be a necessity but spreading will never be. This is still a communication event, and the communication behind good debate is just as important as the content you are debating. There is just no need for it.

If you say it, it goes on the flow and if you don't say it, it doesn't go on the flow. I'm not going to make connections that you don't make for me.

Nine times out of ten I will vote on impacts (including impact calc but also feasibility). I will never vote on impacts with poor links or that are not feasible. For example, if you’re going to run nuclear war as an impact, you better do a good job convincing me that it’s feasible. Impacts should have three things; please don’t forget the brink.

Lastly, the reason that we do this activity is because these issues and topics matter. Make sure that you tell me how real people are affected by your plan/the topic. Don’t be afraid to craft a narrative; that is only going to increase your speaks, and, in some cases, will win you the round.

Debate:

Be respectful during crossfire and argue the opponents criteria with evidence. Provide a value and value criterion for your case. Contentions must be clear and make sure to introduce them rather than stating the title of each contention.

Speech:

Be clear and precise. Make sure your speech flows and comes full circle. I like to see analogies for OO. And Interp events must display a clear understanding of the introduced topic and be very clear.

Background: I debated public forum for three years, prob strike me for LD or CX

Email Chain: student.cvms@gmail.com

If you're running to round and don't have time to read everything

1. Don't spread tags, I'll say clear if its a problem.

2. Tech > Truth, warrant it

3. Crossx concessions are generally not flowed. If you want them to be considered then address it in speech.

4. Weigh. And warrant it.

5. There are very few situations where you should extend everything. Collapse and weigh.

6. Summary things:

-Weigh

-Extend defense in first summary

-Extend everything you want to bring into ff. Otherwise, it's dropped.

-Please don't bring in new arguments. New evidence in 2nd summary only if responding to new evidence in 1st summary.

-Collapse on arguments

7. Final focus things:

-don't bring up new evidence or arguments or new methods of weighing (especially not in second ff)

-ff should generally mirror the summary

8. Don't do the double breathing thing.

Longer Form Paradigm

Constructive:

Tabula rasa for the most part. If you're attempting to run something more progressive than the standard pf fare, keep in mind that you're going to have to explain to me exactly your position and the in-round/ greater implications of your arguments. I know a little about running CP's and T but I would advise against running K since you'd probably lose me pretty early on. Disclosure theory is fine. Lmk if you disclosed on the wiki. Otherwise, constructive is up to whatever you choose to read.

Rebuttal:

1r is your time to read turns, delinks, etc. Generally, you don't have to refer back to case unless you're weighing. Preemptive frontlines are kinda weird and a bit of a gamble but I'm not one to dock you for it so feel free. 2r is trickier, I expect at least some kind of weighing and at the very least addressing turns from 1r. Otherwise, you've dropped those turns.

Summary:

1st summary must extend defense and should weigh. Summary isn't the time for new arguments, but it is paramount that you frontline in summary. I don't really see why you'd need to bring in new evidence except for the aforementioned frontlining clause. Don't extend everything, collapse on arguments. A three min summary isn't an excuse to extend everything, especially since ff is still only 2 minutes. For 2nd summary, no new evidence unless responding to first summary. Try and set up summary to be mirrored in final focus.

Final focus:

Preferably line by line, absolutely no new evidence. New arguments will be frowned upon and not flowed. As previously mentioned, ff should mirror the structure of the summary. If it's a slow day, numbered voters are acceptable as well.

Extensions:

I'm somewhat lax on what constitutes an extension. Blippy extensions like just saying a card name here or an argument name there isn't an extension though. Claim warrant impact is what constitutes an extension. I might get more strict in the future with the more recognized Uniqueness, link, internal link, impact structure but those changes will be highlighted at the top if they ever do happen.

Fiat:

If it's in the res, then fine. Otherwise, don't go yelling about fiat in crossx.

Sticky:

Nothings sticky past rebuttal.

Theory:

The logic behind extensions applies here as well. If you want to extend the shell DO NOT DROP the violation. You have to extend the shell to get offense off the voter. Be specific too, 'their whole case' is not specific. I am generally less inclined to vote on theory than on resolution-based case arguments. Consequently, I am more inclined to vote on RVI's. Disclosure is becoming the norm, if you're a big school not disclosing then you better be very convincing.

Speaks:

Don't spread. Don't take too long pulling up evidence. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Please try your best to not shake your head in abject disapproval of everything your opponent says. I will shake my head when it is warranted. Nodding in approval of your partner is encouraged.

I was a High School debater, with experience in 1 year of policy debate and 2 years of PF.

For PF

- Speed is for policy, but if you can make a clear case while talking fast I don't mind.

- There is no need to be overly aggressive in round.

- I prefer each team have a framework, and argue framework as well in round.

For Policy

- I do have some experience in policy, but treat me like a judge who doesn't know anything about policy.

- Speed is good as long as you are understandable. If I'm not writing down what you say I can't understand you. Slow down.

- I am not a fan of K's but if you think that its a strong argument and you want to argue k go for it.

- There's no point in running 9 off if you can barely get through them. I prefer having a smaller number of strong off case arguments that you can build on.

Debate Experience: Highschool: 4 years Public Forum, National Speech & Debate Association. College: 4 yrs Individual Parliamentary Debate (IPDA), National Circuit Parliamentary Debate, NPDA & NFA Lincoln Douglas Debate (LD).

CX Paradigm: Overall- Have fun! Debate is a great, educational activity. I vote on the flow. I am looking for clash and clear argumentation. Read whatever you want in front of me.

Affirmatives: I like to see a clean plan, advantages, and framing. Please explain how you get to your impacts. I tend not to like "conflict X leads to nuc war" without a unique or detailed scenario explaining how you get there.

Kritiks: Feel free to read your K. Do not assume I know your author or the thesis of your Kritik. They should be explained clearly and have links to the resolution, the aff, or the debate space.

DA's: Please be sure the DA has a clear link to the aff, I will not make one for you.

CP's: I am looking for how it is competitive w/ the aff and CP solvency. Competitiveness can be shown via mutually exclusive argumentation. If the aff is competitive via net benefits, I am looking for a clear link between the counter plan and how it resolves the net benefit. I will not automatically assume because you are reading a net benefit to the CP that the CP automatically resolves it, you have to do that work.

Perms on CP's: Perms are a test of competition. In my debate career, I read many perms. I think having net bens to the perm will work in your advantage. I do not accept perms after the 2AC, so if they are brought up in the rebuttals, I will not flow them.

DA to CP: I think that DA's to the CP should have cards. I also think that DA's to the CP can be run alongside Perms of CP. Negative should be able to collapse to their best argument.

Condo CP's & Theory: Status of your CP should be established when asked or before then. I think that conditional CP's are acceptable. Kicking out of arguments it's a strategic move for negative teams to prioritize arguments they are winning. Additionally, CX has backside rebuttals. So I generally tend to think condo good. However, if the negative loses the Condo theory debate on the flow, I will vote aff.

Perms on Kritik's: I think that Perm's on K's are generally acceptable, but can be an uphill battle. The debater's must be able to explain how the perm can resolve the harms of the K. That being said, perm's are, once again, a test of competition, NOT an advocacy, so if the aff cannot resolve the K w/out advocating for the perm, it will lose my ballot.

Topicality/Spec: T can be fundamentally important w/ abusive aff's. I'm familiar w/ effects T, extra T, and definitions (substantially, etc) T. I need a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters to be able to vote for T. Spec is flowed on a separate page than the aff.

Answering T/Spec: Counter Interps and Counter Standards are offense against the T. I think a we meet is necessary, but defensive. T is apriori & I will vote for or against it as such.

Theory: Theory is a strategy. I view it in a very gamey way. Feel free to read whatever kind of theory you want in front of me. Theory must also be formatted as interp, violation, standards, and voters.

Collapsing: Please collapse. Negatives: By the rebuttals, I should know if you are going for the CP/DA or the T.

Impact Framing: It exists for a reason. Please use it. I don't want to do the work for you. To me- impact calculus makes the difference in close rounds and differentiates the scenario I should be buying over the other.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Feel free to read whatever you want in front of me.

Value & Criterion: Please ensure that your value, criterion, etc are clear, well defined, apply to the resolution.

Contentions: Looking for clear tag lines that explain the thesis of your contention.

Overall: I will look at value & criterion first to see how I should evaluate your contentions. In order to look here, I need a reason why the aff or neg value/criteria should be preferred over the other. Second, I look for dropped argumentation on the flow & how this impacts the arguments in the round overall. The effects or impacts that come from your contentions matter most of all to my ballot. Why are they more important than your opponents?

Public Forum Paradigm: I like to see as much clash as possible. Please interact with your opponents contentions/ counter contentions. I like arguments with clear tag lines that explain the thesis of your contention. Evidence is crucial, please ensure your arguments are warranted.

Cross-ex: Please do not speak over one another. Allow your opponent to finish their answer before asking another question.

Rebuttals: This is the time to synthesize your arguments and explain why I should be voting for you. Please do not bring up new evidence or simply repeat your contentions.

Speaker Points: Please speak at whatever pace you are most comfortable with. I can keep up with speed, however, please be respectful of your opponent. You will not earn high speaker points on my ballot if there is unnecessary sass given to your opponents and partner.

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

Christopher (“Chris”) LaVigne/Judging Philospophy

Background: My background is in policy debate. I debated 4 years in high school (1988-1992) and 4 years in college at Wayne State (1993-1997). In college, I debated at the highest levels of NDT policy debate, but that was also a while ago, before law school and before a professional career. I have rejoined the ranks of the judging pool after a long absence because my daughter started doing PF debate. 2017 was my first year judging PF. I was surprised how easy it was to pick up again. Most of this paradigm is geared towards PF since that is usually what I am judging these days. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of my experience will be on the PF side so you might need to explain more if you have me in a policy debate. If I am judging something else you are probably in trouble because I don’t know what I am doing.

Speed: Not generally a problem; clarity is always the concern. I have not seen a single PF debate that I thought was “fast” by what I generally consider to be fast.

Paradigm: Generally a tabula rosa philosophy. The debate belongs to the debaters. I will endeavor not to intervene in any way in the round. I am open to almost any argument that is supported by evidence or sound reason. The team advancing an argument always has the burden of proof. Making an argument and supporting the argument are two different things. I am fine weighing and considering analytical arguments, but I am not likely to vote on substantive arguments that are unsupported with evidence (i.e., “its just obvious that if Trump does this, then he will react by doing something else that is bad”). Such an argument is a substantive position that requires support. It is different than arguing that the internal link evidence is bad for some reason. Those arguments don’t require support as they are identifying gaps in the other side’s proof. I actually think the burden of proof is an important part of argumentation. Once a team carries its burden, its up to the other team to address the argument. At that point I am not going to intervene.

Footnoting: I am NOT a fan of the practice of footnoting in debates, by which I mean the practice of citing an author or an article and generally describing what the article says as opposed to reading a specific piece of evidence from that article. Too often, when I ask to see a piece of evidence, I get an entire article handed to me because the source was footnoted and specific cards were not read. My primary problem with the practice is that it requires me to do too much work. I need to read the article and find the point being advanced, consider the context of the article, what caveats are in the card that were not read, what impact do those have on other arguments. I just don’t think it is very fair to the other team, especially since they do not have a meaningful opportunity to review the “evidence” in the debate when the only thing available is an entire article. I much prefer “cards” where specific text is read in the debate, although I have no problem with highlighting cards to read only the parts you are advancing.

Does the second rebuttal need to answer the arguments advanced by the first rebuttal: It depends. I was asked this question before every PF debate at Plano, so it must be something everyone is thinking about. In policy, this is never really an issue because the “block” is really required to cover all the arguments and arguments not in the block do not get flowed through. The structure of PF is obviously different because there is no block. If the second rebuttal is limited to only rebutting the other side’s case, then responses to the first rebuttal do not come until the second summary, which means new arguments and applications in final focus. I think that makes for a messy debate. I prefer when the second rebuttal covers the critical arguments in the debate, both on the pro and the con. My answer of “it depends” is really case dependent because arguments something relate to one another. Let me just say that if there is a large gulf on the flow where you have not extended arguments or advanced a contention then I am not likely to give it much weight later in the debate. Drops are an important part of the process. Opposing teams should be able to rely on those drops in deciding how to allocate time. If you think an argument is going to be important to the outcome of the debate, I encourage that argument to be advanced in second rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Preferences: It’s your debate, so argue what you want to argue. I try not to let my biases interfere, but inherent bias is certantly present (see comment re footnoting). I prefer arguments with clear link chains, I prefer clash heavy debate, I prefer line-by-line refutation or a general summary of the argument that addresses all the key arguments, I tend to consider flat out drops as admissions (subject only to burden of proof requirements), impacts are always important, but impact fixation is not a panacea (uniqueness, timeframe, link stability, relationship with other advocacy are all important). In policy debate, process disads (politics, political capital, polarization) all make sense, but less so in PF debate where there is no plan and no clear obligation as to “how” any particular advocacy should happen. I will vote on process arguments, but the link needs to be explained and I am probably inclined to listen more to theory arguments that are detriment to the link (if there is no plan, is there still fiat, if there is no plan do we assume action now, later, in the abstract, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use one part of the flow to answer another part. I really cannot stress this enough. Understanding interrelationships between arguments is very impressive. You should probably be able to explain at the top of final focus or 2NR/2AR why you win the debate and be able to explain it quickly. If you are not extending link chains and impacts in the middle of the debate, don’t bother at the end of the debate. Gulfs on the flow with no ink do not serve your interest.

Don’t be a jerk. Talking loud does not mean talking better. Being confident and assertive is fine.

Questions: Just ask.

Good luck.

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

I am a parent judge.

Also disregard the last update.

General Paradigm

I will judge a round based on what is provided by the competitors.

Linking arguments and weighing the impacts is just as important as having the argument itself. This means explain your arguments and anything that needs to be brought up in order for it to be weighed in my decision. Always provide evidence AND analysis to validate your argument(s). I welcome anything the competitors want to bring in a round, as long as it is fair to all.

CX:

I value the quality of questions rather than just quantity. Be wise on how long you take answering and asking questions. By all means, if you believe asking a question will bring new relevance to the answer (will help your case), then go ahead.

**Note**

I haven't judged in a hot minute so I don't know every arg on this topic but as long as you explain your links + doing everything below I'll be able to keep up with yall.

LOOK AT THIS | WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

Please weigh for the love of god. also kindly don't take super long to trade and pull up evidence it just wastes so much time. sidenote: meta-weighing makes me feel some type of way too.

General

Tech over truth. PF is a game just play it right - collapse, extend and weigh.

Organization

I prefer line by line rebuttals and summary. Voters for final focus is fine. If you're doing something wack or even if you're not signpost por favor.

Strategy

Respond to turns read on your case. Still tryna decide if defense is sticky after its been changed to 3 mins.

Framework

Framing is nice.

Crossfire

I don't really pay attention to CX so if something important happens bring it up in a speech. If nobody has questions just end it early and everyone gets + .2 speaker points.

Weighing

If the round is close weighing will decide which way my ballot is going. Also meta-weigh if necessary (i.e. explain why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.) Also weighing in every speech may not be a terrible idea.

Extensions

Extend the argument WITH IT'S WARRANT (@noah ogata). If you just say extend this - newsflash - I won't.

Evidence

Please don't misrepresent evidence. I'll call for evidence if I feel like it's necessary.

Summary/FF

Do a line-by-line summary and FF and then weigh. If it's not in summary then I won't care if it's in FF.

Speed

I'm pretty decent at flowing just don't go too crazy fast or else I might lose you.

Speaks

27-30. Don't be a douche.

Bring a picture of Noah Ogata, Jacob Mammen, Pranay Gundam, or Mukund Rao to round and I'll give you +.1 speaks each.

No bonuses for Squid Game references but I will laugh.

Progressive Debate

Not super experienced but I'll evaluate it.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

pls weigh i beg.

For all events clarity is extremely important to me, for example you would be better off with 4 sources stated clearly than 10 that don't come across clearly. With that, I prefer fewer well thought out arguments over tons of half baked ideas.

I don't love spreading, especially if you have to gasp for air the whole time, it takes away from what you are saying and distracts from the content of your speech.

I don't really want to limit too much as far as content goes because I feel that is unfair to the competitors, that said, I am mainly a PF judge so in other events I may not love something like a K for policy or running a theory heavy case or something like that.

At the end of the day, I believe debate is about learning how to both formulate arguments and effectively communicate them to your opponent and your judge. You have to have both informed content and clear speaking to be able to be successful.

I am a parent judge with very little expierence. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments. I will vote for the side that is the most persuasive and best explains their arguments.