Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Anwar Abu Hilal Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds

Poonam Agrawal Mountain Ridge High School 3 rounds

Raif Ahmed Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:51 PM EDT

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Sam Ahn Hunter College 5 rounds

Abdullah Akl Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 26, 2022 at 11:33 AM EDT

Experience: I have 8 years of experience in Debating and Judging Public Forum, Policy, LD, Parli, and Congress. I have Qualified and won the state championship 4 years in a row. I started my Debate career as a 7th-grade student and by the time I was in 11th grade, I was the Debate president. After graduating from Highschool, I help coach my high school team and help other teams as well. In college, I have founded my debate team and now have over 45 students on the team.

Online Tournament’s: Please add this email to the email chain or google docs created: abdullahakl9876@gmail.com

P.F. ROUNDS ( Scroll down for LD )

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled tone of voice; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points.

2. Time yourself please

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly.

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

L.D. ROUNDS

You need to time yourself and know how much time you have left and how long your speech is supposed to be.

I vote primarily on frameworks. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable.

Speed. I'm okay with speeding. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking or I won't flow it. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest.

-For some reason it's taking debaters a long time to find and send evidence, if you read it in a speech, expect it to be called and have it ready

Argumentation. I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Have Fun at the end of the day!

Krishnamurthy Anandarao Folsom High School 5 rounds

Finn Andersen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 4:59 AM CDT

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

i go to depaul university now

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

Adithi Attada Hunter College 5 rounds

Seema Atthar Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Varun Aysola Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 3 rounds

Ashwin Balaje Westborough High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 20, 2020 at 12:24 PM CDT

I debated PF for four years (2016-2020) at Ravenwood HS in Brentwood, TN

I have some general expectations for round (copied mostly from Callan Hazeldine and Brian Zhu):

1.) The singular most important thing for me is warranting. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. If you are winning the warrant debate, you are probably winning the round.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).

3.) First summary should extend defense now that there is an extra minute. My philosophy of the 3 min summary is that you should go for the same content but with more explanation and depth, however some rounds may require new arguments to be introduced in first summary for example. Also frontline turns at least in second rebuttal, that'd be pretty cool.

4.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient. Also on weighing, I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

5.) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter-intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.

6.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said when in reality, I couldn't because I struggled to flow it.

7.) Chill out in round. No need to be overly aggressive and stuff, that doesn't really appeal to me. Especially in crossfire.

8.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).

9.) Please don't spread. I hate it. Even in the rounds when I went fast as a competitor, I didn't enjoy debating at all. I'm also a fairly slow typer and I rarely have paper while I'm judging. If you absolutely have to spread, tell everyone before the round and make sure your opponents are ok with it, and send speech docs. Still, if you're going way too fast, I'll clear you.

10.) Please avoid progressive argumentation in front of me. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these, but I also 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. I will intervene (drop them) as necessary. I am unlikely to vote for theory, but if your opponents are being abusive, address it as a warranted voter, I prefer not to evaluate shells. I will not vote for Ks. If you run tricks in front of me, I will drop you immediately on the lowest possible speaks. If you rely on progressive argumentation because you're not good enough at substance, that's your decision, just make sure to strike me or else we'll both be very unhappy.

11.) If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

12.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low. PLEASE feel free to call this behavior out. Furthermore, I don't like 3FFs and postrounding, I'll answer questions, but after a certain point it's just exhausting for everyone involved.

13.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses.

I don't think anything here deviates too much from what could be expected as a "first year out" judge but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Don't forget to have fun in round!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

above all, be nice

Frank Ocean lyrics guarantee 30s for both members of the team

message me for questions

Ishan Balakrishnan Hire 6 rounds

Reva Balakrishnan Gunn Sr High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 12:30 PM PDT

Hi! I debated PF for Henry M. Gunn High School for 3 years (Gunn BZ/BB). I am a junior at Northwestern University and I coach for Henry M. Gunn High School.

Generally:

- offense should be in summary and ff

- defense is not necessary in first summary

- you don't have to frontline in second rebuttal (but pls do it)

- you can go fast just don't spread

- if you are going to go fast and the other team wants a speech doc you have to send it before your speech otherwise slow down (if you send it after the other team has to use prep to basically flow ur speech that is not fair)

- i didn't debate theory or k's but if you explain it to me i will vote off of it (pls do not run progressive args on kids that don't know what that is)

- theory: my threshold to evaluate progressive args unless its directed at specific abuse that occurred in the round is really high (don't run it just for an easy win)

- pls weigh (as early as possible)

- if you want me to look at a card tell me to

- i will always presume neg unless you tell me otherwise

- if there's an email chain add me: revareva@gmail.com

-----

Important:

- if you say something problematic and continue to do so I will drop you and give you 25 speaks

- you can call a TKO in round and if it's correct I'll give you a win and 30s, if you're wrong tho you'll get a loss and 25s

-----

Trigger Warnings:

- if you are talking about sensitive issues plz read a trigger warning

- i don't think just reading a trigger warning and then starting to speak does anything to protect someone who may be impacted by what you are going to say

- in my opinion what you should do is say your trigger warning and then give everyone your phone number or do something to allow everyone to say yes or no

- this is the only way that people can protect themselves and also not have to publicly explain their emotions or why they are sensitive

- if they say no have another case or a contention you can swap in prepared

Feel free to message me if you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or after the round if you want me to further explain my decision or give advice! You can email me or hit me up on FB!

Arnav Bawa Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM MST

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

Dylan Beach Coronado Academy 2 rounds

Ninad Bhaskarwar BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Rahul Bhat Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Mayank Bhatia William Fremd independent 2 rounds

Pooja Bhattad Westview High School 6 rounds

Michael Caplan Phoenix Country Day School 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 9:09 AM MST

I was a high school cross-examination (a.k.a. Policy) debater from 1987-1991 at Jesuit High School New Orleans. I am now an assistant coach for Debate at Phoenix Country Day School as well as the Physics teacher. In between, I earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and B.A. in Plan II from the University of Texas at Austin (1996), a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT (2001), post-doctoral research in Cell Biology at the Duke University Medical Center (2001-2002), and then was an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Arizona State University (2003-2018).

For Public Forum debate rounds:

1) I do flow. Although I can flow at speed (see below for Policy debate), Public Forum rounds should be about convincing me that your overall argument and position on the resolution is correct. What does this mean? It means that, although dropping an argument is important, it doesn't mean that the argument that was dropped becomes absolute truth. It does mean that your opponent did not refute your original claim and warrant, but you still need to explain how that claim and warrant support your overall position in the round in summary and final focus to convince me that your overall position on the resolution is better than your opponent's. So, in PF rounds, I discourage speed. Speak at a normal pace and trust that I am keeping track of your arguments. Signpost (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about) so that I can put your responses where they should go.

2) Use cross-examination periods to ask questions you genuinely want your opponent to answer. Listen to their response respectfully. Don't use cross-examination periods to make arguments. And definitely do not use cross-examination periods to badger or bully your opponent.

3) In summaries and final focuses (foci?), make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round. If you use frameworks, tell me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. The more you can bring the various different individual claims into a holistic view on the resolution, the more you're writing my ballot for me. You still need to win those individual claims (so don't forget to spend some time doing that), but synthesizing those claims into a coherent view of the resolution will go a long way to helping me decide the round. And that's even better if you bring your opponent's claims into that synthesis. For example: "Even if you agree with my opponent's claim that _______, there are still ### million people who benefit because of ________ that we're proposing due to [warrant for that claim]."

4) Remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal / summary / final focus speeches.

For Policy debate rounds:

1) I need to understand what you say. I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate clearly. And, if a particular argument is critical to your strategy, slow down a bit on the tagline to make sure I flow it properly. I will not be on the evidence chain. I believe debate is a speaking event, so I need to hear you say things and understand them at the speed you deliver them. If a piece of evidence is argued in the round such that my reading what it says after the round may affect my decision, I will ask for a limited number of pieces of evidence after the round. If you want me to look at a particular piece of evidence, tell me that in your speech and explain why reading it should be important to deciding the round.

2) In rebuttals, make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. Unless one or both teams argue to judge the round otherwise, I default to hypothesis testing of the resolution. But I'm certainly willing to be convinced to judge the round in other ways. For example, if you argue a K, just make sure to do a good job convincing me that it's important for me to judge based on the K rather than on the typical framework (i.e., hypothesis testing).

Specifically regarding Ks, if it seems to me that you're just running the K to score a win in the debate round rather than actually caring about the issue being Kritik-ed, you can convince me to vote on it; but you'll find it easier to convince me if you actual care about the issue and legitimately believe the other team is exacerbating the problem. Also, for both Aff and Neg, focus on the "Alt". The Alt should be concrete to the point where I can understand what happens in the world if we do the Alt.

Other argument types:

T - Of course. My default is hypothesis testing unless you tell me otherwise.

CP - A good counterplan debate is great fun. Although CPs are easiest when non-topical and competitive, I'm willing to hear theory arguments that I should allow an exception.

DAs - These are the meat of all good hypothesis testing rounds. Make sure to pay good attention to the internal links in the DA. Also, I'm happy to vote for DAs that don't cause nuclear war. When I debated, my favorite DA was "deficits" which often just led to economic collapse. I'm happy to vote for a DA that causes highly probably harms that are moderately bad, and I find those more convincing than DAs that cause unlikely but world-ending harm.

Case - Please argue case. If nothing more, if you're Neg, please at least make a few arguments against case's solvency and whatever their biggest harms are. If the Neg leaves case with 100% solvency and no doubt about the harms, I find it hard to vote down the Aff. Vice-versa when you're Aff.

Performance Affs/Negs - Your #1 goal in the round (sine qua non) will be to convince me that I should judge the round in a non-traditional way that matches your performance goal. For the Neg, I've found that taking the strategy that I shouldn't vote in that non-traditional way isn't always best -- good Affs are very prepared for that strategy (so this usually only wins against teams that aren't well prepared to run their Aff). So, as the Neg, consider the strategy of accepting the basic premise but do it better (e.g., more inclusive, etc.) than the Aff.

For all of these, remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal speeches.

Leona Chan Oakton High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 22, 2019 at 4:25 AM EDT

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

ðŸ˜¤ WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS ðŸ˜¤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

Shivi Chaubey Del Norte Independent 3 rounds

Sunil Chebiyam Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Amanda Cheung The Harker School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 17, 2021 at 2:03 AM PDT

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

Bala Chittem DuPont Manual High School 2 rounds

David Christensen Park City 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 9:14 AM MDT

I did pf all 4 years of highschool and went to nats and the TOC, so I’m pretty familiar with most arguments. I will weigh anything if you give me a reason. If you wanna do theory or K that’s cool as long you give me voters at the end. Voters are really the most important thing for me, so collapse on what you’re winning.

I’m fine with speed.

If you get a concession during cross-ex, make sure to bring it up in a speech as I don't judge cross for anything but speaks.

Make sure to extend. If you talk about it in the 1ar then drop it till FF I’m not gonna weigh it.

Framework debates in pf can get confusing and are usually a wash so proceed with caution

if you have the first rebuttal please don't go over your own case after you rebut your opponents. You have nothing to refute, there has been no ink on your side yet. Use your time rebutting your opponents.

My BIGGEST pet peeve is bringing up new arguments in 2nd summary or FF. I won’t weigh it and I’ll dock you speaks. Please don’t do it :(

I’ll disclose if I can and give verbal critiques if you want and time allows

If you make a formal Evidence Violation where I have to decide the round early based on 1 card it had better be a very flagrant violation ie them altering cards, saying the opposite of what the card says, something severe and manipulative. If it's just paraphrasing that you dont like bring it up in a speech. I have dropped most of the people who have made the evidence violation so far, I don't like to do judge intervention and I prefer the debaters just solve the issue on their own. It had better be a serious and intentionally deceptive violation for me to drop a team based off it.

Speaks breakdown

30- you should final

29- almost no mistakes

28- still good but some fumbles

27- average

26- lots of mistakes, unclear

25- hard to flow

<24- you said something offensive

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in round.

Ethan Cohen Phoenix Country Day School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 12, 2021 at 10:40 AM MST

Don't fret if you're looking at this in the 5 minutes before your round starts, I'll be quick. I have one paragraph per event, and you can be on your way. There's a longer paradigm at the bottom if you have the time.

Congress: I look for the three C's: clarity, concision, and clash. That's how I will judge everything about your performance. Giving a speech? Talk clearly, practice word economy, and give effective rebuttals to previous speakers (if applicable, speeches in the first few cycles can absolutely be mostly constructive). Asking a question? As I'm sure the PO will remind you, try to keep questions short and to the point. Also, be relevant with your questions, please. Answering a question? Keep it short, to the point, clear, and reasonable.

LD: If you're from Arizona, you might recognize me as a policy debater. In fact, I was an LD debater before that. So I am somewhat well-versed in many of the terms. Traditional, progressive, it's all fine with me. However, please be fair to your opponent. Don't weasel your way out of defining utilitarianism (based on a true story). Don't be rude during CX, though cutting a rambling answer off is fine. If you're going for a more progressive argument (especially a K aff or a theory shell), be sure to make your warrants very clear. Assuming this is an in-person round, I can handle speed. Also, I flow tags, not cards, so please don't signpost by just naming the card. Extend the warrants, not the cards (so, for instance, you can't just say "extend Rosenstein 14" unless you also explain what Rosenstein said that's worth extending). Apart from that, just ask any clarifying questions you may have. If you don't have clarification questions, ask me about the defining utilitarianism story. Even if it's pointless, it's a signal to me that you read this.

PF: Public Forum is supposed to be the layman's debate. Not that anybody can compete well, but that any bystander should be able to understand what is happening. To that end, I expect a traditional debate. No plans, no counterplans, no kritiks, and no theory (don't give me a reason to break this rule and give your opponent no out besides one of these arguments). Besides that, just make sure you're warranting every argument and to have fun.

Policy: If you're from Arizona, you might remember debating against me, in which case you will have a good idea of how I like to view policy rounds. If not, don't worry. I can handle speed (although that is not the case for online debate), and will entertain pretty much any warranted argument. If you're going for a K (and especially a K aff), please explain the links and the role of the ballot clearly, otherwise I will default to a traditional plan v squo or plan v counterplan. Also, no Baudrillard. Just, don't. Please also be fair to your opponent. Don't weasel your way out of defining important and uncontroversial terms like "utilitarianism" (based on a true story). Don't be rude during CX, though cutting a rambling answer off is fine. I don't flow the names of cards, so be sure to signpost and extend arguments, not card names. Tell me what Rosenstein 14 says and why it's important, or the extension is incomplete. Apart from that, just ask any clarifying questions you may have. If you don't have any clarifying questions, ask about the defining utilitarianism story. It'll just be a signal to me that you read this.

Speech: Why are you looking here? Just do your thing! I'm sure it'll be great.

Debaters, read from here on out if you aren't in a rush. It goes into greater detail on pretty much everything.

Speed: As long as you clearly enunciate, speed is not an issue, though PF should probably be slower than LD or Policy. There's a reason the most popular rap songs aren't mumble rap. This rule does not hold true when online, as clarity is limited by bandwidth. If your video is skipping, spreading will earn you no points. I will not dock speaker points for a bandwidth issue, but I will dock speaker points for generally being unclear when you talk.

Traditional arguments: Every argument requires a warrant and an impact. If they are not both present, the argument holds no weight. But if your opponent doesn't call it out, I'm probably not going to catch it. So call out when your opponent doesn't have a warrant or an impact. This is really simple, and is applicable across all debate styles. I guess this means tech > truth, but truth is important. So, it's really TECH |-----------X------------------| TRUTH. On that note, don't bring up new arguments in the last speech. That's a great way for me to just not flow it. So when you ask me about it afterwards, I'll look at my flow and it won't be there.

Weighing: "Weighing isn't important," said no one ever. Weigh. Please weigh. If you don't weigh impacts, I don't know how to judge and I can't vote for you. If nobody weighs, everybody's speaker points are automatically terrible. Weighing in the NR, 1AR, Neg block, and summary must be extended through the round for me to consider it.

Kritiks: PFers should skip this section. I've dabbled in some odd kritiks in my time, so I am totally on board with almost any home-brew kritik you throw at me. That being said, please explain any kritik you run. You need to clearly spell out the links, the impacts and the alt. Say it with me now, "A kritik without an alt is a nonunique disad!" If your opponent runs a kritik without an alt, that's a completely valid argument. But onto the substantive stuff.

Baudrillard |--------------------------X| Anyone else (No. Just, no)

PoMo |------------------------X-| Literally anyone else (PoMo Ks can't just pretend to have an argument)

Philosophy |---------------X------------------| Identity (I will vote for both, but you need to justify why the ROTB matters)

Author |----------------X-----| Argument (Warrants are important, authors are not)

Your author's qualifications can't help you in a round, unless you're citing data. If you're just using an author's warrant, that's completely fine. It's your warrant now, you have to defend it. You can't just say "but the card says." You need to justify why the card is right. Your author's qualifications can't do that for you. However, if you happen to be citing David Duke to justify some new restrictive immigration policy, your opponent would be right to call that out and get the card dropped from the round. Basically, your author almost never matters, but watch out for when it does.

Topicality: Skip this if you're in PF. In LD, topicality violations should be pretty obvious to count, especially since the aff is likely arguing for the resolution, not for a specific plan. But, if you're arguing topicality, let me know why it matters. With no impact, your shell means nothing. In Policy, you will be running them more often. Be sure to clearly explain what every violation is and why all of them matter. It's a lot easier to win on topicality with multiple independent links.

Theory: PFers should also skip this. In both LD and Policy, theory is an a priori argument. If you prove the theory shell true, you win. That being said, you need to provide warrants on all parts of the theory shell. That means your interpretations, violations, standards, and voters all need warrants. When it comes to theory, I need to adjust a slider.

TECH |----X--------------| TRUTH (Theory is inherently subjective, and there is no perfect truth. Define it for me)

Plans: In PF, you will be punished in speaks for running a plan, even if you win the round. In LD, plans can be specific, but I will give the neg a lot more leeway when it comes to analytical replies and theory/topicality arguments. In Policy, plans are the norm. If you're not reading a plan, you have some explaining to do, but you already knew that when you wrote the case.

Counterplans: If you run this in PF, please quietly put a rubber band on your wrist, stretch it, and let it slap you. If you run this without a plan on the pro, do it twice. In LD, be sure that your counterplan also abides by your position on the resolution, and that you can effectively weigh the net benefits of your counterplan against the impacts of the affirmative plan. If it doesn't do both, I won't automatically vote against you, but I won't enjoy voting for you. In Policy, just make sure you have your net benefits clearly laid out with warrants. I need a unique reason to vote for the counterplan. The aff plan must be better than the squo, but the neg counterplan must be better than the aff plan. You can convince me either way on conditionality, I really don't lean one way or the other.

Tricks: Please don't. If you don't immediately know exactly what I'm talking about, this probably doesn't apply to you, so you don't need to worry about it. If you do immediately know what I'm talking about, then you know more about it than me, which means I probably really won't like what you're doing. You're likely going to get really low speaks.

Lola Collaso Torrey Pines High School 2 rounds

Yash Dalmia Mission San Jose High School 2 rounds

Grady Day BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Alexander DeMartine Loveland High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 1:07 AM MDT

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High school. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).
DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you, and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.
Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.
Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.
Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.
I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win. Congrats you played yourself!
Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.
Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.
If you have an anime reference in your speech I’ll give you extra speaks, and my respect.
At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong vvc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!
Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).
The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.
I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.
I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).
The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!
1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).
The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).
If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so just do what they do and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win.
I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other.
I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads.
In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.
Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Congress

My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be a little harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).
Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread you are failing in every aspect.
PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.
Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).
To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

Yesh Dhruva Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 5:46 AM CDT

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

Read this above all: "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. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

Tommy Douglass Hire 6 rounds

Haiyan Du Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Sastry Durvasula BASIS Phoenix High School 3 rounds

Catie Easter Sam Barlow HS 2 rounds

Alexander Eckinger Mountain View High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 6, 2021 at 12:11 AM PDT

Here's my background. I did three years of debate at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA. That consisted of lay LD, then circuit LD, and finally PF. When I debated my final year in public forum I was heavily influenced by my time in circuit LD. I hope that gives you a good initial idea of who I was as a debater- which is, of course, important for how you adapt to me as a judge.

General things:

You should be nuanced in your speeches, applying all of that wonderful critical thinking you've learnt/are learning. I would love to see some in-depth, insightful, and profound debates. This involves:

1. really interacting with the arguments your opponent puts forth. I don't enjoy two-ships-passing-in-the-night debates, where both sides just read their arguments and don't really do a lot of interaction- and the interaction they do do is weak and lacking in nuance. For those of you I judge for PF, call for evidence so that you can really interact with it. Evidentiary interaction is good!

2. not being blippy. If your point really is short enough that you can say it really quickly (this should be rare), then sure, you can touch on it just for a moment. But otherwise I don't want to hear super short extensions (or arguments in general) where you just state the claim/author and don't explain the argument behind it and why it matters (how it interacts with the opposition). Then the other team will have a really easy time refuting it, so you are worse off. Be thorough. I would rather have a few dense but crucial points than many half-baked claims floating around (collapse). Make sure to weigh too, of course.

4. Weigh (and meta-weigh if it's necessary).

PF:

Tech > truth (bigotry is an exception, as is possibly theory which I elaborate on below). If you go for a crazy argument, I will vote for it. But note that attempting such an argument (unique/creative doesn't necessarily equal crazy/weak, mind you. In fact, I would love to see some debates with really creative arguments) is risky. If it's genuinely sketchy, the opposing team should be able to shoot it down easily. To that end, if you go up against a crazy argument you should quickly but skillfully refute it. This logic applies to arguments like theory- say you go up against theory, and you've never been trained in answering it before. You don't need to use any buzzwords. Just respond like you would any other argument. Flow it and respond logically, I won't give your response any less credence because it's unlike "typical" theory responses.

I am completely open to having time looking at evidence being off of prep time. I think this practice helps ensure proper evidentiary standards and allows for a more thorough and nuanced debate- especially in PF.

I believe disclosure is good. So I will evaluate disclosure theory. That being said, things in PF are a little different. If you're up against some small team that doesn't even know what the wiki is or has never encountered theory before, my bar for their response will be low (or nonexistent. See the next sentence). If I think you're just using theory (any theory really, not just disclosure) as a tool to win because you know your opponents are out of the loop on the subject, I may not vote on it. It's noninclusive and rude. Please do not put me in this situation.

Don't spread your opponent out. You can speak quickly as long as your microphone/internet are up for that. If you straight up spread you should flash speech docs. I'm fine with either side saying "speed" or "clear" during the debate for accessibility reasons. I want debates to be accessible, so if you need your opponent to go slower in order for you to engage, please speak up. Don't abuse this, of course.

Final:

Please be inclusive and considerate of everyone involved.

***Please signpost well. It makes things so much easier for me to keep track of.***

Gayatri Eerpina Folsom High School 5 rounds

Ayslin Exum Paradise Valley High School 2 rounds

Eddie Fitzgerald Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 4:01 AM EDT

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Aric Floyd The Harker School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 9, 2021 at 2:14 AM PDT

Please contact me any time, including before or after our round, with any questions or comments: aricf@staff.harker.org.

Above all else: Treat the round as an educational experience, and your fellow participants as you would like to be treated. This means being reasonably kind in general, but also ethical within the debate. I may intervene, even when not asked to by the opposing team, if a competitor:

○ fabricates evidence, including disingenuous paraphrasing, or

○ employs hateful language, or

○ is disrespectful vis-à-vis trigger warnings for unexpected arguments (either neglecting to give one or, more rare, asks that a potentially-triggering argument is avoided as an act of strategy rather than legitimate self-care).

Background

○ PF and LD in high school (2011–2014), both events on the national as well as local circuits

○ Coached PF at the Champion Briefs Institute (now part of ISD)

○ Now an Assistant PF Coach at The Harker School.

The upshot: I have been in a lot of debate rounds, so I am comfortable with debate-specific jargon and can flow at most speeds (I will call "clear" if needed). Please know, though, that clarity can be a factor in speaker points.

Sign-posting is especially appreciated, as I keep a detailed flow and base my decision on it.

Winning My Ballot

My preference is to do as little work as possible, so tell me what to do: clear weighing of well-linked impacts within a well-established framework will go a long way. Try to anticipate the places in the debate where I have to make a non-obvious decision; if you give me reasonable instructions on how to make that decision, and the other team does not, you are ahead. I am open to almost anything that is sufficiently justified within the round, though the farther you stray from the resolution, the more you are inviting me as a judge to insert my own subjective views on reasonableness.

Things I wish I saw more of in PF:

○ Contextualize your impacts against the alternative(s). If you have a link to a small percentage decrease in the chance of, say, a famine, your impact is not that voting for you saves 100% of the death toll of said famine.

○ Be selective. For example, it's often not a great use of time to read turns and mitigation on the same argument. If the turn is strong, mitigation only hurts you, and if it's weak, why read it?

○ Be comparative. If you read a card that says something is true, and your opponent reads a card that says it is false, you need to give me reasons to prefer your argument to theirs. Do not just repeat your argument and insist that it is true without engaging in the clash.

Let's have fun!

Claudia Frank Tempe Preparatory Academy 6 rounds None

Tony Garcia Fullerton Union High School 3 rounds None

Prasad Ghatigar Desert Vista High School 6 rounds

Daniel Gibson Hire 6 rounds None

Johnathon Giesecke Belvidere North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM CDT

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

It’s not an argument without a warrant.
'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
‘Probability weighing also isn’t real
Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.
Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus
It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense
Miscellaneous Stuff

Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there
Have preflows ready
open cross is fine
Flex prep is fine
K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.
I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory
I don't care where you speak from
I don't care what you wear

Prem Goel Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 2 rounds

Rajalakshmi Gopalakrishnan Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Miles Gray The Harker School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:13 AM PDT

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

Abhi Gupta College Prep 4 rounds

Pavas Gupta BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

KaLeah Guptill Hire 6 rounds

Muralicharan Gurumoorthy Foothill High School 3 rounds

Clayton Guy Arcadia High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 4:01 AM MST

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

Hayden Harper Carrollton 6 rounds

Zachary Heintz Madison West High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 4:10 PM CDT

I did PF, Congress, and Extemp at Madison West HS in Wisconsin. Since then I have been debating in college and judging for three years.

PF Paradigm:

If you have any questions or have any problems with my paradigm, please tell me before the round or after the round at heintzzachary@gmail.com. If you want additional feedback or advice, don’t be afraid to email me after the round.

I’m a flow judge but treat me lay for speed. Slow down. Never spread.

I like fewer pieces of quality offense, a strong narrative, and strong weighing in Final Focus.

No entirely new arguments after Rebuttal, no new supporting evidence or entirely new responses after first summary. Cards should only be used when they offer unique expertise, data, or examples to an argument, and I accept and encourage uncarded arguments.

Citation is author, source, date said once and then probably never again.

Don’t use authors, or sources as taglines.

I default to a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis framework. This means you need to provide arguments to prefer your framework over this default and your opponents can defend the default framework. I believe having a default allows for a wide range of arguments and forces debaters to actually engage with their frameworks rather than just try to sneak it in on fiat.

Use realistic impacts with smaller magnitudes and probability weighing over just pretending like everything causes World War 3 or financial crisis.

Please no Debate Theory unless its to address in-round unfair behavior, most especially discrimination. If your opponents, myself, or another judge discriminates against you in-round you should tell your coach and tournament organizers. I may drop you for discriminatory behavior, being excessively rude, or obviously and intentionally lying.

Speaker Points: Unless the tournament offers some sort of scale for judges to use for speaker points, I will award a 28-29 on average and will rarely go below 27 unless you were rude in round.

Holton Hennrich Park City 5 rounds

Ronald Heyman Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Ayesha Husain BASIS Scottsdale High School 6 rounds

Emma Innes Westview High School 6 rounds None

Sid Inta Hire 6 rounds

Kiran Ivatury Vista Del Lago 1 rounds

Isabelle Jacqmotte-Parks Cleveland HS 3 rounds

Praneel Jadav Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 4:41 AM CDT

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

Nadia Jafar Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Anika Jain The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 8, 2021 at 5:19 AM CDT

I was a policy debater at Harker from 2012-2017 and now coach there. I primarily read policy-leaning arguments, and most of my 2NRs consisted of a DA/case, DA/CP, or Topicality. I now primarily judge and coach LD: I would most prefer to judge LARP debates. I would least prefer to judge tricks/theory debates. If you read tricks, phil, ridiculous/frivolous theory, or Ks with "B" letter authors, you will likely lose. RVIs are not a thing.

If you're doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it: anikaluvsla@gmail.com

In broad terms, I'd appreciate if you could use the most warrants and do the most comparisons that you think you need to in order to win. I evaluate arguments by thinking about their relative risk, but don't know if "zero risk" is as much a thing as people say in debates. Your arguments must consist of a claim, warrant, and impact - I will not read your evidence to construct the latter 2 parts of this for you.

CP: with specific solvency advocates are the best; otherwise, are still good. as a longtime 2a, probably lean aff on cp theory but can surely be persuaded otherwise.

DA: good. politics too.

Topicality: enjoyable when there is clear and specific clash, not enjoyable if extremely generic or out of context violations. case lists and impact comparisons are important. don't really want to see your pre written Nebel 2nr

Kritiks: enjoy these when there is a clearly articulated and specific link, not a random set of cards you read in every debate. i am more familiar with kritiks of security, capitalism, etc., and enjoy when the neg can point to specific things regarding the affirmative rather than blanket statements. I also enjoy the use of historical examples and well thought out impacts in these debates. The alt is very important. I am not inclined to voting on a K without a clear explanation of the alt. not interested in arguments that rely on the idea that death is good, not real, or anything similar to that.

Planless Affs: I went for framework against every planless aff I ever debated: do with that information what you will. topical version of the aff will compose a significant part of my decision in these debates, though I've come to think it's not necessary. I also do not think it necessarily would have to solve the aff.

Theory: I probably have some predispositions but will try my best to put them aside when I judge your debate. Especially in LD, I have a low threshold for what I consider a dumb argument (read: rvi, spec, afc), and I don't particularly want to judge a debate where you throw out a bunch of random shells and see what sticks.

Speaker Points: I'm a pretty sarcastic person, so I appreciate some of that and humor (while still maintaining respect). Be nice but bold, and use CX well. If you are not clear and I do not hear an argument then that is on you: be clear enough to convey the arguments you want to win on. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with lots of CX/prep spent asking your opponent to list all the arguments they made, or waiting forever for a marked copy so you can see what cards they skipped- you should be flowing.

Sung In Jeon Hire 6 rounds

Ben Jones Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Paul Jones Oakton High School 4 rounds

Jermiene Junsay Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds

Eshan Kalra The Harker School 3 rounds

Porshali Kathiresan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 2 rounds

Khalid Kazmi Champion School 2 rounds

Julia Kennedy Poly Prep Country Day School 6 rounds

Venu Keshavan Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds None

Shaurya Khanna BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Ahritta Kim Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Daniel Kim Archbishop Mitty 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 3, 2021 at 1:53 PM PDT

Hello all,

My name is Daniel from San Jose, CA and I will be your judge for today’s debate.

While I have minimal judging experience in Varsity PF, I recommend you read EVERYTHING below to get an idea of the adult who will be listening to your debate.

I will try my best to judge the debate in a fair, neutral manner. While I do not have kids that debate, I used to participate in forensics during my high school days so I hope that will help me while judging your rounds.

I do take notes while listening, and I like to think I am knowledgeable on the topics provided for the debate resolutions to be contested. I try to vote for the team whose arguments are more convincing and logical, rather than the team who speaks more elegantly. Thus, the team who gets my ballot will win.

Please do not “spread” during your speeches. While speedy debaters can make me excited about the debate, do not speak to the point where I will have difficulty understanding you.

Some extra notes for virtual debates: First, please do not shake my hand. There is a pandemic going on and there is no need to unnecessarily spread germs. Second, I’ve heard that some judges ask for your evidence so they can look at it for themselves. I'm not sure how this is possible with paper evidence (?), but if you feel particularly compelled to share your evidence with me, you can put your papers right in front of your camera so I can look at them. If you are going to do this, please make sure your room is well-lit and that the camera properly focuses on the text. It would also help for you to have a steady hand!

For me, one of the most important components of the debate is etiquette and respect. As the great Confucius once said: "Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?". Quite philosophical indeed! While I understand debates can become disputatious or heated at times, it is important to respect your opponents and judge at all times in the debate, particularly during cross-examination periods.

Second, it would behoove you to speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY. Debate is a communication activity so it is important to communicate your ideas and logic in such a manner.

Third, second rebuttal should frontline all offense including any overviews or weighing. First summary should also extend defense.

Fourth, evidence quality matters a lot. While paraphrasing is fine, I will call for evidence if I think it’s suspicious, regardless of whether or not it was contested.

Fifth, depth of argumentation is always more important than breadth. Instead of extending the E subpoint to the 6th warrant of your 3rd contention, please use your big boi speed to warrant and weigh your arguments thoroughly.

Final Notes:

If you ask for 30 speaks, I will be tempted to give a combined 30 speaks to you and your partner.

Don’t run theory (unless it’s very very egregious) & please don't read any critical arguments.

Don’t waste time and keep the round moving quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyEBeHvNJvE

If you have questions about my RFD, please ask.

Email: sox8502@gmail.com

Ted Kim Nova 42 Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM PDT

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Ramesh Kodnani Mission San Jose High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:47 AM PDT

About Me

I have 10 years of experience judging for various schools. I have mostly judged for Mission San Jose High School and periodically for independent entries like Stonewall Academy. The majority of my judging has been in Public Forum and I am familiar in the fundamental concepts of the format.

Preferences

I always come in with an open mind and vote based off of each side's arguments rather than personal bias. In order to win the round it is important that each side weighs each of their impacts. If impacts aren't weighed I won't flow them. If you want higher speaker points and want me to be able to flow your arguments, it is important that you speak clearly and at a good pace. I also appreciate it if you give me a little background into the topic and clear up a few things. Each side should provide a standard for me to weigh on so I can vote for a side based on the impacts. Both sides can also argue which standard is more relevant to the debate and which I should be judging on. If neither side proposes a standard for the debate I will just be judging on which side makes the world a better place. As for links, make sure that your links are logical and aren't huge jumps. If you suddenly jump from the EU joining the BRI to a nuclear war, I won't buy it. Please don't run theory. I will only take it into account if it is actually justified and reasonable (which it almost never is). Lastly, if a side brings up a new argument or point in Final Focus, I will ignore it. You're just going to be wasting your time.

Speaking Points

I will reward a debater with more speaker points if they remain clear and speak at an understandable pace. I dislike spreading as I feel its unnecessary. It is also important that each speaker is respectful in crossfire and other speeches. If any debater starts yelling and is overly aggressive I will lower their total speaker points for the round.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me during the round. I hope you provide me with an interesting debate!

Sonal Koul Foothill High School 3 rounds

Ujjwal Krishnamurthi Leland High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 5, 2024 at 6:19 PM PDT

Paradigm:

Hello! My name is Ujjwal, and I used to compete in LD debate for four years at Saratoga High School. I came from a traditional school, but I was often active on the circuit and won Golden Desert my senior year. I also qualled to the TOC my senior year and was the first from my high school to do so.

I primarily ran LARP and Phil positions, along with T and the occasional theory shell. I did read a few Ks in high school, but this is the style of debate I am least familiar with. The paradigm below is primarily catered towards LD, but much of what I say is applicable to policy as well.

The paradigms I most agree with and the people who have most directly influenced how I think about debate: Jacob Nails, Pacy Yan, Lawrence Zhou, Jake Nebel, Marshall Thompson, Fred Ditzian, Hemanth Sanjeev

Please share your analytics!!! I understand the strategic advantage of having your opponents drop some random argument they didn’t flow, but the potential benefit of your judge catching something that they may have missed without the analytics probably outweighs. It’s regrettable that I have to do this, but I will reward a speaks boost for people who do share their analytics.

Speaks are capped at 29 for people who do not collapse in the 2NR. Special circumstances may change this, but it’s an uphill battle to convince me that this isn’t a good idea.

I’ll yell clear a couple times, but after that, it’s on you to catch me not flowing. After the first two times, every successive time I yell clear your speaks will suffer.

Conflicts: Saratoga

Top Level:

I want to be on the email chain: ujjwal[DOT]krishnamurthi[AT]gmail[DOT]com.

I consider myself a tech over truth judge, but arguments must meet the bare minimum of a claim, warrant, and impact for me to sign my ballot. I will not vote on arguments that are missing any of the aforementioned components, even if a warrant or impact suddenly comes up in a later speech. For example, I expect a 1AR theory shell to be developed to the point where the standards aren’t just blips thrown out into the speech, but rather actually warranted arguments – I expect to be able to draw lines in my flow from one speech to another, and sandbagging your warrants to the 2NR/2AR won’t work in your favor.

I won’t vote for arguments I don’t understand. The litmus test for whether I will vote on an argument is if I can coherently explain it based on the 2NR/2AR. I won’t make arguments for you that you didn’t make in round, and your evidence should back up the claims you have made. My RFD should sound like the 2NR/2AR of the winning team, and you should do a good job of mixing both big-picture overviews with a lot of line-by-line technical contestation.

General Structural Preferences:

I tend to prefer when debaters give line-by-line technical analysis as opposed to big picture overviews. Too often, the latter leads to debates which have little interaction and force me to do a lot of comparative analysis. I like the path of least resistance, and giving comparative weighing and line-by-line responses is much more persuasive, and will lead to higher speaks.

I love nuanced and intelligent 1NC strategies. 1NCs should be written to strategically engage in every part of the aff, or with the particularly weak parts of the affirmative. You have the advantage of being able to prep out the aff before the round and find out what the best strategy is – cobbling together a weak and generic 1NC isn’t persuasive and will be met with lower speaks. I would like to see smart topic-specific 1NCs that do a lot of case debate over generics that can be recycled through multiple topics. I think that reading specific advantage CPs against topical affs is one example of this.

For card quality, my preferences as of late are more densely highlighted and fewer cards. I’d much rather see dense cards with lots of warrants that are extended through the 1AR than a lot of cards that have little highlighting and few warrants. I prefer well-developed and high-quality arguments over strategies designed to minimize engagement. For example, I’d much rather see a CP, DA, and three minutes of offense on case than a 1NC that just tries to gain a strategic edge from layering.

Make rounds educational for novices and traditional debaters. Every debater starts somewhere, and using circuit-style tricks to avoid clash makes these debates less enjoyable and will, in all likelihood, lower your speaks.

As a debater, I care more about the content of arguments than the form. So I won’t vote on ‘They didn’t say I meet’ even if your opponent extended an argument that they didn’t violate. I care more about in-round interactions of arguments over checking off the exact words of what was said.

Being clear is very important to me. Always sacrifice speed for clarity, and err on the side of over-enunciation. I give speaks based on clarity (among other things), and being the fastest won’t impress me if you can’t match up with clear delivery.

T and Theory:

I believe that RVIs on theory are winnable in LD – I’m not particularly disposed towards one side or the other. That being said, I do believe that it is much harder to win an RVI on T – it seems incoherent to me. RVIs seem to be much harder to win in policy, though.

TJFs do not seem to be coherent to me. They are all generally pretty terrible arguments, and I don’t enjoy hearing them. You should prove that your framework is true, not that it’s fair and educational in debate to pretend that it is. I have similar views on other theoretical reasons to accept/reject a framework (like AFC or Must contest FW).

I’m a fan of Nebel T – it remains unclear to me how anyone seriously believes that this is an untrue argument. I expect it to be executed well and will be very generous with my speaks for people who do so. This is a double-edged sword however – I don’t want to hear it thrown into the 1NC just because my paradigm indicates I’m friendly towards it – if you haven’t done the work to understand it and can't coherently explain the semantic arguments, then you won’t be happy with your speaks.

I default to Drop the Debater, No RVIs, and Competing Interps unless otherwise told.

I don’t have strong opinions on disclosure theory, but I do not like hearing it read against opponents who are clearly novices. You may win, but at the cost of extremely low speaks. I do like good disclosure practices, and will give a speaks boost for good disclosure practices (just tell me before the round or right after the 2AR).

CPs:

I don’t have a particular leaning on condo, but I believe that condo bad is much easier to win in LD than policy. Condo is always reject the team, and making reject the arg claims will be met with audible laughter. If you read multiple conditional offs, I think you should probably bite the bullet on infinite condo rather than making up some arbitrary threshold.

I like advantage CPs and I think that they’re underutilized in LD. I will vote on ‘cheaty’ CPs (Delay, Process, Consult, etc.) but I think that I’ll be much more persuaded to vote on these if you win competition with the aff, and I think that winning competition helps me resolve theoretical questions of CP legitimacy. The one caveat here is that I believe that Agent CPs aren't legitimate and don’t provide an opportunity cost to doing the affirmative. This belief is unlikely to change, so I am extremely sympathetic to affirmatives that point out this basic problem.

I will judge kick providing that you win it and the CP is conditional. In both policy and LD, I tend to agree with the argument that doing nothing is always a viable alternative to doing something, but I've rarely had to adjudicate debates on these grounds so I don't have particularly strong opinions on this.

Advantages/DAs:

Politics is treated as a legitimate argument for some reason and I still somehow vote for these even though fiat probably solves the link, simply because affirmatives tend to mishandle them.

Many advantages and disads are very contrived arguments, and I tend to buy into Nate Cohn’s view that these are low probability. Also, don’t write off your impacts as extinction/existential-risks when your authors make passing references to that it maybe could happen. This is pretty terrible evidence ethics which I’m surprised few people call out. As stated above, I’ll hold your analysis to whatever the card says, so I won’t buy your ‘1% risk of extinction outweighs’ arguments if your author doesn’t concur.

I tend to like smart strategies and line-by-lining when answering these, like if you go for a straight turn or non-unique + link turn and make specific takeouts rather than just spreading through your generic blocks. I also like robust evidence comparison and author indicts, and individuals who make these arguments will be rewarded with higher speaks.

1AR case extensions can be short, but they can’t be incomplete. I’ll only vote on what you extend, so don’t spend too much time on conceded arguments. A good rule of thumb is to stop extending and move on when I’ve stopped flowing.

Ks/Non-T Affs:

If this is your primary style of debate, pref me mid to low. I'm fine for stock Ks like Cap, Afropess, and Set Col, but not for high theory or super in-depth Ks.

I think that critical literature is interesting and has the potential to engage well with certain topics. That being said, I loathe the way that debaters bastardize these arguments. ROB and ROJ framing is the exact same and often just an impact-justified framework. It doesn’t really make sense to me why your impact is the only thing we care about, and your authors often wouldn’t agree with how you’ve interpreted their arguments.

Please include specific weighing as to why your offense comes first or outweighs case. I don’t like when people just extend their ROB and tell me that a 1% risk of a link categorically outweighs case, and I’m definitely willing to buy that we should weigh case against the K.

I also do not enjoy hearing debates where you make broad root-cause assertions with little evidence and just assume that I’ll buy your unwarranted ontology assertions. I want your theory of power to be not just some sort of analytical assertion, but rather based on data, logic, and statistics. Also, do not just critique some random assumption of the aff and assume you can win – I’m sympathetic to no link arguments by the aff in these cases, and I want to hear specific links to the plan, not just some recycled state bad cards.

Vague alternatives are bad. I want an actor and what exactly you do, not some sort of critical interrogation or whatever buzzwords you used a thesaurus to find. If your alternative functions like an agent CP, make sure to read that section of my paradigm.

I’ll vote on silly K tricks like VTL, self-fulfilling prophecy, floating PIKs, and the ilk, but don’t expect the greatest speaks. Floating PIKs are new 2NR arguments unless in the 1NC and will be treated as such.

Aff should be topical. I’m more inclined to vote on framework, but I want it to be justified well and fairness impacted out correctly. For affirmatives, please win your interp and win that your form of education outweighs fairness.

Phil:

I love philosophy! I think it’s really interesting, but I don’t like it when people bastardize different philosophies in hopes of just confusing their opponents. I’ll hold you to how you can explain your philosophy under scrutiny and won’t intervene for you even if that’s not what your author defends.

I default to truth-testing. I have a low tolerance for terrible a-prioris and random framework tricks. Many of these skirt the line on what counts as a warranted argument, and I will not vote for new recontextualizations of 1AC/1NC arguments even if blip #47 is dropped.

Permissibility very rarely affirms (barring a rehash of 2007-2008 topic wording), and most of the arguments that people make today are just blatantly incorrect. I will vote on presumption, but I predict that I never will. It’s unlikely that you win terminal defense (if such a thing exists) and debates rarely come down to being 50-50.

I don’t like the way that tricks are read as blips, designed to minimize engagement, but I do think that well-warranted tricks can be intriguing! I’d be happy to vote on these, but they need to be warranted when they’re read, not warranted after they’ve been dropped. I am inclined to give the 2AR new responses to random 1NC blips, so make sure that your arguments are warranted from the 1NC.

Make comparative framework warrants. My pet peeve as of late is that people just read their ethical frameworks and have zero interaction. Please answer FW warrants and make hijacks as to why your FW outweighs.

The 2NR/2AR gets new responses to underview spikes as long as they’ve been applied differently in the 1AR/2NR. If they’re mangled into new arguments, then the next speech gets to contest them as such.

I default epistemic confidence but am easily persuaded either way. EM also doesn’t mean auto-util, so please stop making this argument.

PF Paradigm:

I did PF for a little bit during middle and high school – most of my LD paradigm applies when it comes to making solid and logical arguments. I don't have too many preferences about PF, just make logical arguments and I'll evaluate the round as such. Weigh comprehensibly and make it easy for me to flow by clearly extending and going for arguments.

Not super psyched about the advent of theory and Ks here (at least as of 2019/2020). Since I’m primarily an LD/Policy judge, I think that most of these arguments are very misapplied and run incorrectly. Ideally, I'd like you to read the evidence and not paraphrase it, but if you do paraphrase I will hold you to the text of what your cards say – evidence ethics is important and powertagging your cards will only hurt your speaks. I will call for lots of cards at the end of the debate, and I won't hesitate to throw out an argument if your evidence doesn't say what you claim it says.

Don't have a strong opinion on what you need to frontline in second rebuttal.

I won't vote on arguments in FF that weren't extended in summary.

Sidhart Krishnan Leland High School 3 rounds

Nicole Kroepel Belvidere North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 4:31 AM CDT

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Mirsada kurspahic BASIS Peoria

Nathan Leal BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 1 rounds

Hui Li BASIS Phoenix High School 3 rounds

Yang Li BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Jinjun Liu Seven Lakes High School 3 rounds

Megan Liu Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 9, 2021 at 6:09 AM PDT

Little bit of background, I debated PF for 4 years with MVLA, but haven't competed since Sept 2019 or judged since Mar 2020, so don't expect me to be the most tech/flow judge out there. I haven't done any research on this topic beforehand.

If there are any accommodations that you may need during round, please let me or your opponents know so we can try to work something out. Debate should be educational, not a place for you to bully other students.

tl;dr

Please extend your links and impacts through summary and final focus. Anything that's crucial must be there if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise, speak clearly, signpost, and don't be rude.

Trigger Warnings:

- you NEED to read a trigger warning and provide time for response if you're addressing a sensitive topic. saying trigger warning and moving on isn't enough

Argumentation:

- prefer a strong analytical arg over a bunch of cards (of course please have cards to back up your arguments though). I won't vote off of something that I don't understand

- anything important must be in summary and FF if you want me to vote on it. make all necessary links for your impact clear to me!!!

- weigh, weigh, WEIGH!

- not familiar with theory, but if you explain it clearly enough, I'm willing to evaluate it

Cross:

- anything important that comes up during cross needs to be brought up in speech. I generally don't flow it or pay attention

Speaking:

- I can keep up with some speed, but you shouldn't need to in order to articulate your argument

- with that being said, wifi may be against you so I'd advise you don't speak too quickly or I can't guarantee I understood what you said

- I won't hesitate to tank your speaks if you're rude or disrespectful

- use jargon if you'd like, but that doesn't mean you don't need to explain your args

- signpost, number args, etc. to make it easier for me to refer to on my flow since I can't guarantee I've flowed every word out of your mouth

Evidence:

- DO NOT LIE. that's all.

- I'll call cards if you tell me to/if you're accused of misconstruing or miscutting a card

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Vinay Mahendra Jasper HS Independent 2 rounds

Mehul Mahimtura BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Sreenivasa Makineni Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Madhavi Mallareddy BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 2 rounds

Shobha Master Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Khegan Meyers Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM EDT

Did PF for 4 years at King High School, now attending Emory University in ATL.

Please add me to the email chain/google doc (I prefer google doc): Khem6th@gmail.com

If both teams agree, I will give 45 seconds of prep time instead of grand cross (taken simultaneously by both teams after summary, does not get added to individual team prep time).

Feel free to postround me, I don't really mind since it makes me a better judge and my decisions more clear. My decision, as written, will not change.

Pretty standard PF flow:

- Warranting is big important – cards shouldn’t do all your work

- Second speaking team should at least frontline turns in rebuttal, I will put less weight on new frontlines made to defense in Second Summary (meaning a blippy response/backline in final by 1st speaking team will be adequate)

- Anything in Final has to be in Summary, except weighing for either team and unresponded defense for 1st speaking team

- I will only vote on things that make it into final focus, I work backwards on my flow

- If there's no ink on the link chain, you can use blips to extend it in final focus, but try to keep it cohesive in summary.

- Please collapse

- Explicit weighing (jargon) and explanations of mechanisms

- I prefer more probable, low severity impacts over less probable, high severity impacts – the best thing you can do is provide historical examples

- Speed: I prefer well-warranted, conversation-paced debate. If you are to go fast, keep in mind that I flow on my computer and can type like max 80wpm when I have text in front of me, so don’t go mad fast else I’ll miss stuff

- I will vote on the easiest path to the ballot

- I do not care about cross, make it fun, anybody can talk if they want to

-"Are you tech over truth?" - to some extent, I will evaluate an argument I know to be false if its not responded to but this doesn't mean that you should skip warranting just cause its on the flow. Like other judges, my threshold for quality of responses goes down the more out-there an argument is.

Progressive arguments:

- General:

I do not have a lot of experience with progressive argumentation (this means probably argue util for a better ballot). If you want me to vote on progressive arguments, please give me explicit explanation of what the link is and good explanation of why the impact comes first. I don’t really like unwarranted “moral duty” arguments but warranted and explained moral weighing is fine.

- Kritiks:

With Kritiks, I have little experience with them as well – if you want me to vote on a Kritik, I need really defined role of the ballot arguments of why my vote makes a structural change. I don’t understand a lot of K lit so please make it as if you were talking to a friend of why something in the system needs to change and less like you’re in front of a well-versed policy debater.

- Theory:

I have a little more experience with theory than general progressive args and Kritiks, but normative arguments need very good Standards and Voters/Impact for me to vote on it – I generally like undisclosed, paraphrased (heathen statement right?) PF but I’m open to good arguments on that or on other norms. Also, I do need you to go slower and present an actual flowable shell.

Evidence Ethics:

Please do not take any longer than a minute to find a piece of evidence, and if you are having technical issues finding a card please just say so.

Evidence should not be misrepresented, whether its cut or paraphrased. I will read evidence as its written, not how its cut or tagged, even if it’s not brought up by your opponents – I think it encourages lazy research practices and abuse of PF rules.

This being said, I likely won't call for a card unless it is a) pivotal in my decision, b) its veracity is contested and important, or c) if both teams read opposing evidence and none gives a warrant of why their's is better

Speaks:

- I think speaks should be based off the pool, so no set rules on scale

- If you make the round fun for me to judge, or if I laugh, you and everybody else in the round will probably get higher speaks

- I don't listen to cross, so do whatever you want really

- I appreciate competitors being nice to each other and friendly, it makes the activity more fun for everyone. This event, though competitive, should support a learning environment with a community so treat your opponents like you would your friends in conversation :)

Misc:

I don't have an onboard camera for my computer, and its a hassle for me to use the usb plugin one. I likely won't have my camera on.

Yall gotta rock with the oral rfd ❗️❗️

Michael Milles Belvidere North High School 2 rounds

Pankaj Mittal Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Elliot Muhlenfeld Hire 6 rounds

Nita J. Muhlenfeld Hire 6 rounds

Krishnamurthy Muralidhar Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Srinivas Nachuri Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Anjana Nagarajan-Butaney Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Ilan Nurko College Prep 4 rounds

Lauren O'Rourke Arcadia High School 3 rounds

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School 3 rounds

Pietro Ori Phoenix Country Day School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 20, 2022 at 6:28 AM MST

Public Forum

TL;DR: Flow judge; line-by-line, but warrants are important. No spreading. Weigh. Stay away from progressive-style arguments.

Experience: I competed in PF from 2016-2020 (and some LD) at Phoenix Country Day School. I currently study politics, rights, and development at NYU.

General Philosophy

I am a flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If say you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

I firmly believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of debate experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. Generally, I'd much rather see well-paced debate with clear depth over high-speed debate with wide breadth.

Speed: Slow rounds > fast rounds; If you plan on spreading... don't.

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- First summary only has to extend defense if it is front-lined in second rebuttal.

- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.

Weighing: Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense (don't weigh on probability; I view probability as deriving from strength of warrants).

Evidence: I deplore evidence abuse. If you deliberately misconstrue the words or arguments of your sources, I will drop you. I will call for cards if I have good reason to suspect evidence abuse or if your opponents tell me to.

Crossfire: You will not win off of crossfire, but if you get a digression/warrant explanation and extend it into speeches, I will flow it. I promise that you won't embarrass yourself with simple clarifying questions; debate is much better when everyone knows wth is going on. Grand is unequivocally stupid; don't compromise your chance at winning/speaks by getting all frustrated, I'm probably ignoring the content anyways.

Speaks: Are a reflection of politeness, oral/rhetorical proficiency, and organization (signposting/numbering). If you demonstrate support for or knowledge about the Phoenix Suns you get +0.5.

Techy/Progressive Arguments: As a PF debater, I do not expect you to be educated on the specific formats of technical arguments. Such an expectation reeks of privilege; accessibility is the rule. I expect any argument you make to me to be conceptually understandable by a moderately educated adult with no debate experience.

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you.

- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments. No to speaker-point/disclosure theory.

Other:

- I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email.

- I prefer a chill, relaxed, and informal vibe in rounds. Have fun!

Shaan Parikh Jackson High School 4 rounds

Joanne Parker Cranbrook 6 rounds

Sonya Patel Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Dhanunjaya Penmatcha BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Aimee Perlstein Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds

Claire Peters Park City 5 rounds

Ky Pham Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds

Nina Potischman Oakwood School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 1, 2022 at 7:30 AM EDT

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:

Please please please do not be late :(
Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks

Theory

If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
Slow down for interps/counterinterps
If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
Please weigh

I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
Good strategies
Using CX effectively
High argument quality
Good overviews/crystallization
Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!

Things that will get you low speaks:

not disclosing
tricks
being shifty
lots of spikes/blippy arguments
super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
clearly not understanding your own positions
being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
academic dishonesty

Nagesh Ramisetty BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Dilip Rangan Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Gopakumar Raveendrakumar BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Anuya Reddy Foothill High School 3 rounds

Pratik Rungta Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 5, 2021 at 9:23 AM PDT

!!! IF THE SECOND-SPEAKING SIDE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE OR TAKES PREP TIME BEFORE BOTH CASES ARE READ, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED ON MY BALLOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Hi, I'm Pratik. I'm a former PF debater from Canyon Crest, now studying at UC Berkeley. (class of '23)

TLDR: Read the bold (but you should read everything if you have time). Also, these announcements:

*2020-2021 SEASON: Most presentational stuff in my paradigm won't apply because of remote debates so ignore those. BUT, the remote nature means you will have to speak more clearly than in an in-person debate.

How I judge:

- I consider myself a really basic, no-frills debater and judge, which means I would prefer the typical definitions/framework/contentions debate. I won't understand any policy/LD mumbo jumbo, and will never accept copies of your case/speech doc/etc.

- 80% flow, 20% speaking/presentation. As a general rule, better debaters tend to be better speakers. I have a big soft spot for 'flay' teams and rounds so if going fast isn't your thing, don't sweat it! It'll also boost your speaks for prelims. In elims, I tend to be more flow- and argumentation-heavy.

- I don't flow crossfire, or factor it in my decision. Use crossfire to trap your opponents and expose gaps in their arguments. Elaborate on your team's crossfire discoveries in the following speech.

- I will disclose unless it is too close to call on the flow. I will also give a (mostly) oral RFD after round unless we are running late. If either case occurs, expect a lengthy written RFD. You are always free to talk to me or ask for my email after round.

Other rules:

- I prefer speaking speed to be <200 words/min but can probably handle up to 225. Above 225, I won't be able to flow effectively, and 300+ is considered spreading. If I can't flow something you said because you were too fast, and end up dropping it or voting against it, that's on you, not me.

- No calling for evidence/running prep until both cases are read. Also, please don't slow down the flow of the debate by calling for evidence all the dang time.

- No using prep time before cross.

- Don't abuse offtime roadmaps. Keep roadmaps to 5 seconds if you want to use them offtime. However, ONTIME road maps/signposting are greatly encouraged and highly recommended (see "How to win").

- 5% grace period on speeches to wrap things up. If your opponents are being abusive with time, let me know.

- After the round, I may ask for cards. Keep them ready!

How to win:

- The 4 Cs: Be clear, concise, convincing, and confident. That's it. Everything else I say here falls under one of those.

- SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized. Use roadmaps before/at the start of your speech and number your topics. (Ex. "My opponent's first contention was ___. I have three responses. First...")

- CLEAR, RELEVANT VOTER ISSUES IN FINAL FOCUS. If the debate is super messy, then I may just only factor your Final Focus speeches in my decision.

- Have good posture and delivery. Don't hunch over your paper/laptop in your delivery; look at me as much as you can while giving your speech. Remember, your speaks DO matter to me more than the average circuit judge.

How to lose:

- I will instantly give your team a loss and tank your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.

- Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.

- Slur/mumble/speak in a way that I cannot understand and flow what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss and 25 speaks.

- Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus. The only exception is if your opponents dropped rebuttal defense in their Summary Speech.

- Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.

- Break tournament rules.

If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:

- Stop the round IMMEDIATELY (not after the round ends) and notify me. I will take appropriate action. I would prefer to have both sides present during a conflict, but if it is something you NEED to speak to me in private about (without your opponents around), please request not to disclose after round.

- The longer you wait until after the round to notify me of any wrongdoing, the less I can do about it. I will NEVER accept claims of a violation without evidence unless I noticed it too.

Speaking/presentation scale (updated 11/17/20):

NOTE: This score has NOTHING to do with the quality of your arguments.

25 or less: Rule violation, discrimination, spreading, etc.

26: Rudeness, I didn't understand anything you were saying, frequent pauses, monotony, distracting fidgeting, etc.

27: No droppable offenses, but below average.

28: Average.

29: You're VERY good, and only had a few errors that only minorly impacted your delivery.

30: Basically impossible to achieve from me.

Thanks for reading this really long paradigm! Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.

PSA: Spreading, common in circuit LD and policy, is contrary to the purpose of debate because debate's main objective should be to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it inaccessible to a larger audience and lowering any chances of real discourse happening.

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Shreya Sahoo Vista Del Lago 1 rounds

Gabriel Sandoval Albuquerque Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:51 AM MDT

Gabriel, He/Him/His, sandovg65@gmail.com

UPDATE ASU CONGRESS 2024: I've debated congress before but this is only my second time judging it. I'm a debate judge so focusing on the cohesiveness of your arg is my priority but speaking also matters (can't get a 5 or 6 on arg alone). Happy to answer questions pre-round.

Intro

I debated Policy for 4 years at both the state and national level, and have experience judging all three debate events. I was an assistant Public Forum coach for a year and have also helped coach Policy students. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your analytics-- if it's unintelligible, I won't flow it. Just make it really clear when you're transitioning from one idea to another.

I don't trust tabroom completely anymore, so if you have any issues seeing ballots/ anything else with my profile, just email me, I will have the rfd's all saved in a word doc.

Because this is a concern I've heard expressed from some debaters I know-- if I'm not looking at you, it's a good sign, because it means I'm flowing. If I am looking at you, I'm trying to figure out what on Earth you are saying, so I can try to flow it.

Please put me on the email chain.

FOR LD/POLICY (pfers scroll to the bottom):

On Policy and "traditional" args

Theory/ Topicality: I'm cool with this stuff if and only if it is run when necessary. Be careful with theory as it isn't always your friend-- sometimes it is just a time waster. For example, I don't like it when teams run disclosure just cause they're used to it/good at it. Run it if the aff is tricky and them not disclosing actually hurts how you are able to debate-- you need to prove that it is your education at stake if you want to run disclosure in front of me. Truth over tech for sure when it comes to theory.

Topicality I have more patience for (I'm more willing to vote on it for tech-based reasons) but also you need to prove to me why it's bad for debate if the aff is untopical. I'm not going to vote on theory or t just because the aff drops one of your million analytics--but I will vote on them if I feel like you've proven to me the world of debate will be better adhering to your norms. I actually really like topicality when it's run properly I just think that often times it's run as a time suck which makes me sad.

Other Policy args: Framework is good. Disads are good. CP's are good (but I am sure to be considerate of the aff and the potential harm that ridiculous CP's bring, especially if aff makes args for itself). "Traditional" style LD debates are good. Policy style debates are good.

Everything is pretty much good with me if it doesn't undermine the well-being of your fellow debaters or marginalized groups in some way. I also value education in the debate space VERY highly-- don't stifle it.

Tricks-- If you have to rely on tricks to win a debate round, you should probably strike me.

On K Debates

I'm cool with K debates and think that if done right they are some of the most educational debates. I do have one rule, however. Either a K aff should be semi-related to the resolution or the aff debater needs to devote a couple seconds to telling me why the K takes preference to the resolution. I feel like most debaters do this, so it's not normally an issue, but if you don't I think then it's fair game for the neg to fight for resolutional debate. Basically, I go into the round prepared to vote based off the resolution, but I will do differently if it is successfully argued otherwise.

I've both debated K's and debated against K's before, BUT if you read anything too critical, consider summarizing it briefly for me in lay terms-- if I don't know what it is, it'll help me out, and if I do, then it'll boost your speaks because it shows me you can adapt to lay debate with critical arguments. Putting it into a "real-world" perspective will highlight to me why this argument matters.

Overall I think K debates are great and are always better if they're a K you run passionately than if they're the old Cap K you pulled from a camp file 2 years ago and shoved a link card on.

On Voters/ how you should debate

I love both traditional debates and non-traditional-- but I need you to include voters in your rebuttals that tell me why I should consider voting for you. These voters should be for strats that you have carried throughout the round and fleshed out well-- it's okay to condense down to a couple key arguments if you know they can win you the round. What's not okay is just dropping your opponent's arguments without either making it clear to me why they don't matter in the context of the round or neglecting to tell me why the issues you have selected are the critical talking points of the round and deserve all of my attention. There are usually so many arguments in the round, and having each team tell me what they value as the most important argument and why said argument is a voter makes it much easier for me to give a ballot (this means you should condense, even if you are aff, don't try to go for everything, it never ends well). Without voters, you risk me voting on whatever issues I think are most important, and who knows if that will benefit you or not.

Again, tell me exactly WHAT you did that I should focus most on and WHY it is worthy of a ballot. I can look through my flows and evaluate the technical aspect of the debate myself-- what I can not do myself is determine which arguments are most important without bias. Please don't make me even come close to having to rely on my personal opinions to decide a round.

Overall, debate is a game, somebody will win, and somebody will lose. I love seeing different strategies and approaches to it-- that's what makes debate fun. That being said, no game should ever come at the expense of hurting somebody personally, so if there are abusive attacks and/or harmful arguments at the expense of a marginalized group/ a debater, I will take it very seriously both in the administration of the space and with my ballot.

Always feel free to ask me questions before round.

Speaks Chart (for tournaments with decimal speaks):

30: I feel lucky to have judged you because you are just that good.

29.7-29.9: Your performance "wowed" me, good on the flow, good at speaking, and with exciting argumentation.

29.3-29.6: Great debaters.

28.5-29.2: Good debaters and good at speaking.

28-28.4: Good debaters with room for improvement on speaking.

27.5-27.9: You made a couple of errors, but nothing that significantly frustrated me.

27-27.4: You made several errors, but I can see a semblance of strategy.

26.5-26.9: You made several technical errors that have me questioning if you really ever had a path to the ballot.

26 or lower: You said something really offensive/made the debate space actively bad.

FOR PF:

1) Weighing is really important!!!! Teams NEED to tell me how to vote-- I go in to the round open to voting for just about anything (no racist, homophobic, etc. arguments). Telling me how to vote and providing me with evidence/args to back up your claim that you have the best voters is key to my ballot. Especially in debates with lots of args all across the board-- I need voters so that I can see what you think is most important about the round. Teams weighing helps make my ballot so much easier.

2) Refute your opponent's arguments in addition to extending your own, but also don't try to go for everything in your final focus. CONDENSE! PLEASE!

3) As a former policy debater, I'm decent with speed, but be careful transitioning too fast between contentions/ analytics. Those fast transitions are what can make PF hard to flow. Basically just slow down to sign post so I put things on my flow properly. Maybe one day PF will pick up flashing and I can delete this.

4) Have arguments that are backed up by both evidence and analytics. I'm not going to vote solely on unwarranted claims, but I'm also not going to vote for you because you threw a bunch of authors at me and just said "figure it out." Evidence debates are only good if your opponent's evidence is unethical/incorrect, and rarely are good when your evidence is just "better."

5) I'm not the biggest fan of sticky defense or not frontlining defense in second rebuttal, but I understand that PF speeches are short and you're in a time crunch, so I won't hold these things against you. All offense must be frontlined in second rebuttal, however. No new arguments in second final focus, ever!

I'm not a fan of PF cross x and there is a pretty big chance I won't evaluate it unless things that are said come up again in later speeches. I will listen to it, but probably won't put anything down on my flow based solely off of what I hear in cross. Teams being nice, clear, and not turning cross X into a garbled mess often times get rewarded with high speaks from me in this event.

If you have more questions you can ask me before the round. I implement the same speaks chart as listed in the LD/Policy section (if there are decimal speaks).

Arunabh Sarkar Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Naima Sekandari Mountain Ridge High School 3 rounds

Balaji Sekar Del Norte Independent 3 rounds

Anik Sen Corona Del Sol High School 2 rounds

Ammie Serr Park City 2 rounds

Deepika Setia Paradise Valley High School 2 rounds

Aarin Shah Brophy College Prep 4 rounds

Ashish Shah Mountain View High School 2 rounds

Shveta Sharma Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Renu Shembekar BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Nitin Singhal Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Adhi Sivathanu Foothill High School 2 rounds

Jacob Sloan Hire 3 rounds

Sripad Srirambhatla Westview High School 6 rounds None

Sophie Stankus Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:39 PM PDT

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

Amy Stein Albuquerque Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 7, 2021 at 3:48 PM MDT

Congratulations on making it this far! I know you have put a lot of work into this event and it is appreciated.

I am a lawyer and a law professor who has been judging moot court debates for two decades. I value clarity, clear reasoning and analysis, and evidence. To be effective in this realm, you should remember these tips:

· be courteous to your opponent and keep a conversational and civil tone (always strike ideas, not opponents - "You can disagree without being disagreeable." - RBG);

· be prepared to address any arguments presented by your opponent (do your homework and have your cards ready to defend them and make sure you do not use facts out of context out of desperation);

· be responsive to your opponent (be nimble and fast on your feet); and

· be genuine (do not cower or ignore bad facts that work against you, but address them head-on). It is much better to concede where your argument is weak than to ignore or bluff your way through the clash.

A few of my judging preferences are below:

1. Spreading is disfavored. If the judge cannot follow your flow, you have already lost.

2. You want to make the judge’s job easy so signpost and weigh the metrics for me. Both sides will obviously have some good points, so explain why your metrics are more important.

3. Listening is key. You will be more effective if you adjust your prepared remarks to respond to your opponent instead of just reading what you prepared.

4. I will do my best to have an open mind to disregard any preconceived biases, but remember that your job is to lead me in your reasoning to a logical end (“Oratory is the power to talk people out of their sober and natural opinions.” – Joseph Chatfield)

5. Crossfires are critical. The questions you ask are just as important as the answers you give. You have limited time so make them count.

5. Be confident in yourself, good luck, and remember to have some fun!

Donald Steiner BASIS Chandler High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 2:48 AM MST

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Priti Sud BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Ram Suravaram BASIS Phoenix High School 3 rounds

Serkan Tan Fullerton Union High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 12:04 PM PDT

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Andrew Thong Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Nahom Tulu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 11:21 AM EDT

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic. weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

Miranda Vega Arizona College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 8:07 AM MST

Hi I am Miranda Vega. I competed in PF debate, Congress, info, and various interp events in high school, and now I am the assistant coach for ACPHS. This will be my 4th year judging debate, so I am looking forward to it! I will disclose quickly after the round if time permits; however, I will not disclose if the tournament directors explicitly tell me not to, or if one of the competitors are not comfortable with it. I do try and provide really extensive feedback within the ballots but for some reason if I forget to finish it or it cuts off please email me @ mirandakathleenvega@gmail.com you put in a lot of time and effort and you deserve your feedback.

(ASU Congress scroll all the way to the bottom)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some general paradigms I have:

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage, like talking at the speed of light. For this reason, I HATE SPREADING, I think this makes debate inaccessible for the general person, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. This is especially true for debate formats like PF and BQ, as they are meant for lay judges. DONT SPREAD IN PF AND BQ. If you spread in PF or BQ two things will happen. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging the round, and I will not get very much down on the flow which will more likely than not lead to you losing the round. At a certain point I just stop flowing, and as a tech judge you are probably going to get the L. If you are going to spread in LD and CX, that is fine. HOWEVER, you should only be spreading the card text and I should still be able to understand what you are saying. If you are mumbling and I don't know what you are saying then I am not going to understand the evidence being read. You need to slow down on the Contention Names, card names, tags, warrants, and analytics. Spreading anything that isn't card text will ultimately end up with me not really flowing and you, most likely, losing the round. Debate is an oral argument so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. That is why if you are going to spread you only spread card text. Anything else I won't get on the Flow

Evidence Violations:If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuit and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. So make sure your card says what is says and don't misconstrue the evidence. This also includes debater math. You can't just mush two stats together and call it a day.

Cross examination/fire: I never flow this. I am typically writing in the ballot during this time; however, I am still paying a bit of attention to make sure you guys are being respectful to each other. If I notice it is getting out of hand I will give a warning to the person being disrespectful, and if it happens again then I will drop debater. If something completely and horribly disrespectful happens in round (racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism), I will just drop debater. This is also a period for you to clarify things, not do another rebuttal. CX no tag teaming. The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way anyway 2) that is time that your partner can be prepping. No tag teaming.

Tech>truth: you still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something I am not just going to automatically flow that through. Also, if you run something really far fetched you can, but the second your opponent calls it out as such I am less likely to buy it.

No sticky defense: if you drop an argument it is conceded in the round. That doesn't mean I am just going to automatically flow it to the opposing team. They still have to extend in every speech that it is conceded. If you pick up a dropped argument, I will not weigh it at the end of the round. Generally, when you do that you are wasting time that you can be telling me why you should win the round.

Signpost:Please please please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On their C2, "specific warrant", we have "number" of responses". Or for progressives tell me what part of the progressive you are going to attach. If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible. If you are going to address an argument as a whole TELL ME THAT, and tell me why that should be enough.

Weigh: Tell me why you win! Please weigh for me! If I have to do this you may not like the outcome. Also, it is not enough to tell me "I outweigh therefore I win". How do you outweigh? Are you outweighing on magnitude, scope, timeframe???

Extensions:You MUST extend in every speech. However, just saying EXTEND is not an extension. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over theirs.

Everybody should time their own prep: I am timing speeches and cross. There is no 10 second grace period, I don't know where everyone got this rule from, but it doesn't exist. I stop flowing at the end of the time regardless if you keep speaking.

STAND FOR ALL SPEECHES AND CX PLEASE (exception GCF in PF)

If aff doesn't win enough offense or impacts for me to weigh that offense I presume negation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC FORUM

The paradigms mentioned above are pretty much it.

If no framework is mentioned my default is a cost-benefit analysis.

The team that wins my ballot will tell me why their impacts outweigh the others.

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS. I can't believe that I have to say this, but this is a lay friendly debate format. There is also not enough time to properly run and respond to them. I will drop the argument if it is run. Please just don't I will be so annoyed. If that is something you love to do then join LD or CX, but no progressives in PF.

I don't take prep time for calling and reading cards. That being said. If a card is called and it cant be located within 2 min it is dropped. It should be already cut and easily found. If there is a tech issue that is different. That being said. If you are reading the card don't take an eternity either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICY DEBATE

Refer to the general paradigms I listed above.

You can put me on the email chain with my email, but know that I am only flowing what I hear you say. You can spread but ONLY CARD TEXT. You need to slow down on your tags, warrants, impacts etc and for your analysis for why I should extend your argument further in the round. I am NOT going to yell clear, so if you see me stop flowing you need to slow down otherwise you are most likely going to lose the round.

Run whatever you want, just make sure that what ever you are running is formatted correctly.

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST PLEASE I BEG OF YOU For some reason policy people don't sign post enough. If you are reading responses to a disad or the plan you should tell me what parts you are responding to so for example this is what I am expecting:

"Onto the [BLANK] Disadvantage. First onto uniqueness, we have [#] of responses. 1) response response response 2) response response response. Then onto the external link we have [#] of responses" That is what I am expecting when I say signpost.

Any other questions please ask me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I think I have judged LD on a circuit only a few times. I judge my LD kids all the time, and judge Policy now on the circuit regularly.

Like I said no spreading but card text. If there is an email chain put me on it, just know that I am only flowing what I hear.

The way I will judge the round is whoever wins under the winning framework. So just because you don't win your framework doesn't mean you can't win the debate. If you can still prove to me that you solve for the standard better than your opponent I will vote for you. That being said I understand that sometimes your arguments may be mutually exclusive from your opponents.

Since I judge policy so often I am fine with progressives run whatever! I am cool with K's, performance K's if you want (just make sure your K's are well linked), any plans or CPs I am cool with.

If you have any other questions please let me know!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS

For the love of all that is holy, this is Congress not debate. Do not use debate jargon. Dont say drop, extend, my opponent, vote aff.... this is Congress you say "pass this bill" or "fail this bill", "my fellow representative/senator" etc...

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SPLITS BEFORE THE ROUND! My biggest pet peeve judging Congress is when y'all agree on a docket, and there is no first aff or neg. And you have to take a bunch of 1 minute recesses. Those are also a pet peeve.

I really do not like rehash, at a certain point in the cycle you need to start doing rebuttal speeches and if you are all the way at the end of the cycle then do a crystallization speech.

Try not to rely heavily on your legal pad.

The more you sound like a Congress person the better you will rank. Rhetoric is your best friend.

I will rank PO pretty high if you do a good job. I won't rank PO in the top 6 though if there are A LOT of precedence and recency errors.

Manahil Vellani Mission San Jose High School 2 rounds

Samuel Vincent Hire 6 rounds

Adhar Walia Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:33 AM PDT

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

Cindy Wang The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM PDT

My paradigm is pretty similar to this one: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35843

*EXCEPTION* I will accept what the evidence says unless the other team asks enough questions that make it sound stupid. I will not vote for anything that sounds incredible or just completely dumb.

General:

1. Assume I'm bad at debate. I hate doing work.

2. If you read two cards correctly and they make sense, I will buy them instantly. (these are not specific for a reason)

Guardian card that says 420.
A card that says chance of civil war jumps to ~77.6%.

3. I don't know how to evaluate theory. Shoutout to Kyle Chong.

Speaks:

1. I don't often give 30s but if you make me laugh or make me cringe, I’ll give you a 30. Also, if you make a half decent pun with the topic, I’ll give you a 30.

2. If you go more than 5 seconds over time I’ll take off 0.5 speaks per second after.

3. I’ll take off a point every time a terrible analogy is used. (selling an apple for $5 is not comparable to international trade)

Evidence:

1. Make me call for it. I also hate reading a lot, so don't tell me to read it unless you think it’s critical.

2. If you read a card I know, you should hope you're not misrepresenting it.

Case read:

Speed is not an issue.

Cross-x:

1. You get first question if you speak first.

2. Don't be mean.

3. Refer to point 2.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Point 2 is really important.

Summary/FF:

1. Anything works.

2. No new evidence in FF.

Argument stuff:

1. If you read a link turn and say "if you don't buy that", then proceed with an impact turn, you better explain why I can't evaluate your impact turn under your link turn. Otherwise, it's a double turn.

2. If you read anything diabetes or sugar related, I will not like the arg. Although it is important to recognize that whether I like the argument does not matter. If it’s well developed, I'll vote for it.

Joseph Wang Torrey Pines High School 6 rounds

Raghav Warrier Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM MST

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Wanhong Wen Winston Churchill High School 2 rounds

Apryl West Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds

Melisa Wilson Westridge School 2 rounds

Franklin Wu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 3 rounds

Qiang Xie Leland High School 2 rounds

Hao Hao Yuan BASIS Phoenix High School 3 rounds

Harry Zhang Seven Lakes High School 3 rounds

Max Zhang Hire 6 rounds

Michael Zhao Flintridge Preparatory 2 rounds

Vlad Zhuravskyy BASIS Phoenix High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 16, 2022 at 1:06 PM EDT

Short Paradigm:

-I flow

-Tech>Truth

-4 years of PF at American Heritage School, 3 TOC quals

Long Paradigm:

Arguments:

-I'll vote on literally anything that makes sense and isn't blatantly offensive. That includes progressive arguments (Theory/Ks) or counterintuitive substantive arguments (nuclear war good/economic development bad).

-I'll vote on presumption even if you don't tell me to as long as neither team has any offense. I default neg on presumption, but I'm open to arguments regarding defaulting alternatively.

Extensions:

-Defense isn't sticky; I'm not evaluating anything that's not in final.

-Second rebuttal has to respond to all offense; otherwise, it's conceded (I will let some things slide if you're in novice).

-No progressive off-case positions in the second rebuttal unless the other team violates in first rebuttal; DAs are fine.

-First summary doesn't need to extend defense that the second rebuttal concedes. It can go straight to the final.

Speed:

-I can comfortably flow anything ~300 WPM without a speech doc assuming you're clear

-You can spread against anyone even if they are not ok with it but

a. If they are novices, you have to warn them before the round. If they say "speed" and you don't slow down I'll stop flowing.

b. If you have factors preventing you from following speed outside of your control (i.e., a disability), then tell your opponents or me about it (I'll keep this anonymous) and make sure that no one spreads.

c. I'll be receptive to theoretical arguments assuming they are properly structured.

Weighing:

-If it's not comparative, don't bother making it

-If it's fake (i.e., we outweigh on probability because we have a link and they drop defense), don't bother making it

-If you aren't winning your argument, don't bother making it

-If the first final has new weighing, I allow new weighing in the second final; otherwise, don't bother making it

Evidence:

-I will never drop a team for misconstruing evidence, only the argument

-I will only evaluate an evidence dispute if you tell me to call for something AND explain what's wrong with the evidence

Progressive Argumentation:

-Slow down for these, and ideally, I want a speech doc regardless

-I can and will comfortably evaluate theory (T, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, Spec, Condo good/bad, etc.)

-I'm open to more nuanced (DAs on shells, comparing forms of disclosure, etc.) or silly (shoe theory/30 speaks theory) theoretical arguments

-If you read theory or Ks in paragraph form I will disregard your arguments.

-I will vote on tricks (spikes/NIBs/skep triggers/paradoxes)

-I will vote on a K but

a. I have no familiarity with your authors

b. I don't have enough experience to be comfortably evaluating K debates (as in I might screw you and you'll be sad)

Prefs:

-I like sarcastic debaters that make fun of their opponents and their opponents' args. Don't make them too upset though.

-Postrounding is good for debate. If my decision upsets you, feel free to question it and me as a judge. You (or your coach) can be as rude, condescending, and aggressive when post rounding if you're feeling like it, and I won't hold that against you.

- I encourage teams to pursue unconventional strategies like responding to the first constructive in the second constructive. Or reading arguments that take out all offense on both sides and then telling me to vote on presumption.

-Speaks are arbitrary so let me know if you're in a bubble and need high speaks to break

-If your offtime roadmap is too long, then I'll be upset.

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges