I am not a debater so please talk slowly and have traditional round.

Hi! I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year of judging LD. I have only judged traditional debates therefore, I ask to keep the round traditional. Please do not spread I won't be able to understand you, just speak at a normal pace I will take off speaks and it will hurt my ability to judge the round. I am more familiar with contention level debate or advantages and disadvantages. Please do not make the round a philosophy debate I won't understand it just stick to value, criterion, and justifications. I really value your speaking ability when making my decision. Conclusion and Weighing also go a long way so make time for it when you can.

I think this goes without saying but please be respectful and don't use any harmful language in round.

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two LD debaters - one novice and one JV.

I have judged novice LD for two years now. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

Hello, I am a parent judge but I am semi-familiar with the debate circuit, but mainly PF. Treat me like a lay judge, though.

Add me to the chain: yeonkcho@gmail.com

Couple prefs:
1. Trad/larp
2. Phil
3. K (cap, security, etc. just the simple ones), aff Ks
Strike: tricks, weird aff ks (high theory), friv theory

Tech > truth

Speed:
Don’t spread, please. It kind of decks all the benefits of debate as a portable skill. I’ll boost your speaks if you win while being clear/slow

Evidence:
Don’t clip. Check evidence of your opponent. I’ll vote on ivi/dtd if you tell me.

CPs:
I like a good CP, but just make sure to warrant this out really well. I’m skewed a little bit more towards perm, but if you win on the CP I’m happy to vote on it

T
I’m not very familiar with very tricky/progressive debates. Try, if possible, to keep it trad

Theory:
Not really familiar, but I will vote on it. I default no i
K:
I’m kind of familiar with the common Ks, but please explain it well. In your 1NR, read a brief overview of what the k does. If it’s K v Phil, explain clearly why K > Phil of vice versa. K v Ks hurt my brain.

Aff Ks:
You can run it, but I’m super unfamiliar with them. I’ll be happy to vote on them if you explain them really well, though, and leverage it out over your opponents.

Parent judge

Please add me to the email chain: huaiyu.dai@gmail.com, and send me your cases before the round starts.

No spreading, speak clearly, and be nice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I’m a parent judge who has judged LD for 3 years now.

I have mainly judged local tournaments in Minnesota, so only traditional debate.

You should give voters, speak at a slower pace, and explain your argument thoroughly to get my ballot.

My name is Linda Dums (Dooms as in Doomsday)

My email is lindadums@yahoo.com

I am still a newer judge so please don't pref me very high if you are very technical. I was not a debater at all. I am learning as I go. You should speak in a conversational speed. I am not familiar with debate jargon and terminology so please try to over explain your arguments in a way that even people who don't do debate would understand. I will evaluate all arguments that I understand to the best of my ability. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. If you are playing games and tricks, don't bother.

Try to convince me with evidence and reasoning why I should vote on your side.

I do expect debaters to be polite and respectful at all times to everyone in the room: your teammate, opposition, judge and any audience. Do not argue with me.

Above all take a deep breath and have fun!

Hi I'm Ryan Georgeson,

I am a parent judge of a JV LDer and have some previous experience judging Novice LD.

• Talk slower/no spreading
• Keep trad arguements/no circuit

Hello! My name is Aira and I am a first year university student :)

I primarily did Congress through high school and dabbled in a little PF. I debated for Lakeville North HS.

I have judged a number of PF and LD rounds and I find weighing as a very important mechanism in debate. Impacting is also necessary, especially in rebuttal, so I would love to see more of that! Please avoid spreading in rounds as it makes it very difficult to note down all the points you make, I would also say that it would be good to signpost as that helps me organize my notes so I can give you proper feedback.

I am not a circuit debater by any means so run any of these arguments at your own risk ( theory, kritics, CP, etc)

if you are gonna have an email chain add me : airahader@gmail.com

I will start speaks at 27 and move up or down based on how the round goes :)

If you add a Taylor Swift reference into ur speech 30 speaks.

I am the most skilled in judging congressional debate, thus, I can give you the most feedback for it! I would say I find rebuttal very important in round as it adds the most clash, otherwise rounds just end up feeling repetitive and slightly boring. Summary speeches are also fantastic as they end the debate on a strong note! So I will give you higher rankings if you try your best on those two components. Not only that, please introduce new points throughout the debate instead of repeating them, and if you do repeat, extend off your previous opponents and add better points, makes your case a LOT stronger. Rounds can be hard to listen too if you end up hearing the same points over and over.

Thanks for reading!

Prince Hyeamang

American University 2019 | Apple Valley High School 2016

I debated for Apple Valley High School (MN) where I served as a captain my senior year. I qualified for TOC in LD my junior and senior years with a winning record my senior year.

UPDATE 12/19/2020 -- It would not hurt to give this a skim: https://www.debatedrills.com/en/blog/observations-judging/

UPDATES 2/10/2020

This is all towards the aim of being a more proficient judge:

- Refrain from making faces at me- if you don’t like something your opponent said that’s fine but I’m not going to acknowledge and/or validate any of your facial expressions during the debate. I am intentionally neutral with my facial expressions. If you’re able to move me, kudos to you but that just means I’m entertained. But, that is not an indicator that you're winning and/or going to win the debate necessarily.

- Collapse the debate

- 1AR extensions need the complete implication that will be utilized in the round i.e. if you frame something as a take-out to [X] negative argument, you cannot later claim it as offense if that was not stated as such before.

- A lot of clash doesn’t necessarily make a debate better/easier to decide, I much rather see the right clash on the relevant layers of the debate. When you’re crafting your last rebuttal, you should have an idea in your head which exact argument or set of arguments you want me to vote on. It only takes one argument to win a debate if done right.

- Clarity and transition speed are so-so important. I can only think of one time where a debater was outright too fast for me to flow. My issue is when debaters switch flows without pausing, blaze through interp texts, advocacy text, overviews of the round, etc. Part of clarity is also being sufficiently loud. I tend to say louder far more than I ever say clear. I may say louder early in the round even if I can hear so your voice picks up better on the recording

- Your roadmap should be fairly concise- I really only want to know exactly where you’re going to be starting. Signposting should take care of the rest. An overly long roadmap also gives a lot away to your opponent in terms of issue selection.

- Big Picture analysis is necessary in very technical debates. It is not a good strategy for the neg to go for a “let’s see what sticks” approach in the 2NR. Similarly, I don’t think the 2AR needs to extend every piece of substance if the case is conceded by the 2NR, winning the framing of the aff is sufficient assuming that it has been demonstrated to be the most relevant layer of the debate.

- Tricks are fine but just know that they’re not if you end up tricking me. I’m noticing that a lot of these arguments are getting abbreviated. Make sure your extension tells me the full argument b/c otherwise, I don’t know what something like “evaluate the theory debate after the 1N” means. I wish I was joking but I've seen this argument used in 3 different ways.

-----

TL;DR -- Pursue whatever strategy you believe will produce your desired outcome whether that be winning, top speaker, losing for cause, etc.

Priorities: Clarity and strategic vision in that order

Respect all parties involved, myself included. Carry yourself with class. Strike a balance between technical proficiency and telling a coherent ballot story. I have a great appreciation for any strategy executed efficiently with minimal jargon.

Be clear about extensions vs. mere references to the arguments you want to be evaluated. Absent this, there's too much room for ambiguity. Use SpeechDrop or email chain. Go slow to fast so I can warm up to your voice. Conversational pace for key texts (interps, plan text, etc.)

My primary background is in Topicality, theory, policy style arguments, Kritiks, and LD style frameworks (moral and political philosophy).

Speaker points are indexed to the tournament so a 30 means you should win the tournament.

Things I'm least well-versed in:

Continental philosophy, high theory, performance, and micropolitics. Nonetheless, I'm more than open to hearing these arguments. Hopefully, I can learn a thing or two from you.

Full View

I see my role as a judge as part-adjudicator, part-hired contractor. This means how you carry yourself in the round matters. I'm looking not for formal professionalism, just decency, and civility. I also think perceptual dominance is a good thing.

Adjudication: For the purpose of time, my RFDs will be brief. I will provide a decision and reference to the specific argument(s) used to arrive at my decision. Any further explanations and questions will have to be resolved outside of the round or via email- princehyeamang101@gmail.com

Document sharing- Please use speechdrop. This shouldn't be a replacement for clarity. Also, please no time theft. If it becomes an issue, I will use my discretion.

Clarity/speed- This should enhance your strategy and speech, not detract from it. Speaker points will be a holistic reflection of your speaking ability and strategy. I'll never stop flowing you but I will say "clear" as many times as necessary. If I'm interjecting a lot, I'm probably not getting much down anyway.

Speaker points: Being awarded a 30 mean I think your performance in THIS round would win you THIS tournament. That means a 30 at TOC looks different than a 30 at Alta. Also, I'm not going to maintain any particular average. I find it to be arbitrary. I will be as specific as the tournament scale allows.

Arguments: I am a fairly ideologically open-minded judge. Pursue strategies that you can execute at a high-level and/or will give you the best chance of winning. Recognize that those two approaches are not always the same. I am more concerned with the quality of the warrants than the content of the argument. That being said, it behooves you to flesh out arguments.

I think one of the great things about debate is the creative license that it affords students. Debate sometimes necessitates interacting with arguments that one may have little or no familiarity with. The same can be said with judging. Since this is the case, the only clarity I can provide on my views is outlining defaults on different argument structures which I am by no means bound to.

Paradigmatic Issues: These go into effect if you are radio silent on an issue.

I'll start with comparative worlds, as opposed to truth-testing, or any particular kritikal/performative pedagogy

General Principle/On Balance is not the same as Whole Resolution

Whole Resolution is much broader. Neg is allowed to read specific counter-advocacies. The burden of rejoinder is much looser here. I understand General principle/On Balance to mean the neg can only engage with generics. Please ask if there's any confusion.

If the aff reads a plan, plan focus is in effect

Solvency is not necessarily the same thing as a solvency advocate

For the framework, I default to epistemic confidence. This means I will only evaluate offense under the winning framework

Presumption flows neg unless the neg reads an Alt/CP in which case it flows aff

Alt/CPs- Status is conditional

Permutations function as a test of competition, not as an advocacy shift

2NR add-ons are fine but they have to be reactive to something in the 1AR, not the 1AC

Theory- Drop the Argument

Topicality and Meta-Theory - Drop the Debater

Competing Interps over reasonability

Fairness and Education are probably voters

Side Bias is probably negligible meaning it does not merit any compensation mechanism

I reserve the right to disregard arguments that are implicated in-round to suggest things like rape is good, that your opponent or myself should self-harm, and/or that participant's property should be damaged and/or vandalized. This coincides with my earlier point about being a "part-hired contractor."

Sequencing detail: I think Topicality generally precedes theory. Kritik arguments can function on the same level as topicality and theory, although, not all kritiks inherently do.

Feel free to ask any questions!

Warmly, Prince

P.S. I've found that a lot of objectively lower-quality arguments are winning rounds on the circuit because debaters are belittling them and/or not adequately addressing them. If an argument is bad, do your due diligence and beat it on the line-by-line.

-

PF Paradigm

UPDATE 9/15/2021 Yale Tournament

I have been coaching and teaching Public Forum Debate -- Varsity and JV for 2 years now. However, this is my first time judging at an actual Public Forum Debate Tournament. A lot of my PF paradigm is borrowed from Darren Chang.

My biggest piece of advice is to not adapt your style of debating to me because I have a circuit LD background. I will vote for the team that wins their arguments on the flow so argument quality matters but a little less than being ahead on the flow with a lower quality argument than your opponent (Tech > Truth).

Respect all parties involved, myself included. Carry yourself with class. Strike a balance between technical proficiency and telling a coherent ballot story. I have a great appreciation for any strategy executed efficiently with minimal jargon.

Be clear about extensions vs. mere references to the arguments you want to be evaluated. Absent this, there's too much room for ambiguity. Use SpeechDrop or an email chain. Go slow at first and then speed up if you so choose so I can warm up to your voice. Conversational pace for key texts (interps, key texts, etc.)

--- I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will only call evidence if it is a point of contestation. If I am on the email chain, that is fine but I will likely only use it correct errors I make on my part, not issues with your delivery. I will say clear if necessary. That being said, I have no problem with speed but note that it is definitely not necessary.

--- Arguments in the Final Focus should be in the summary. Intuitive implications/extrapolations aren't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

--- To kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still access their turns since not all defense gets rid of all offense.

--- Evidence needs clear citations, don't steal prep, don't misrepresent evidence. I am one-part educator, another part adjudicator - this means you should stray away from arguments that suggest that things like racism, sexism, domestic violence are good.

--- I will evaluate all styles of arguments. Just make sure the implications are clear - should I drop the author team? should I drop their argument? This is referring to Kritiks, theory, performance, etc.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

I am not a debater so please talk slow and have a traditional round. Thank you.

hi!!! I did four years of LD at Lakeville, mainly locals but occasionally circuit. I prefer tech trad stuff, but I'll do my best to evaluate anything besides tricks.

speed is fine, just put me on the chain: katherine.krogstad@gmail.com

questions are more than okay, but postrounding makes me sad :( pls don't do it

have fun, be accessible, and don't be mean. debate is always a game, but as my friend once put it, play in good faith.

I'll try to average a 28ish for speaks, but if you're rude in any way, you get 26 max.

ways to boost speaks: attach pictures of any pets you have to the email chain, and if you have good opinions about F1 your speaks will skyrocket

minor things that annoy me: taking forever to set your timer for speeches, long roadmaps (seriously just say NC/AC if that's what it is), saying the opp dropped/conceded something when we all know they responded, lying in the 2a (ykwim)

1 - LARP/trad :)

2 - most theory. I don't like frivolous shells, but legitimate abuse justifies it. otherwise I default to DtA > DtD, and also still not sure how I feel abt disclosure. also T of course

≤3 - K/phil (pls explain well, I never ran these and don't know buzzwords)

strike me if you're running tricks. I don't like it and I will probably drop you :)

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

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

I am a Varsity Debater and Senior at Apple Valley High School.

I rather like Phil arguments, and I have a good understanding of them, but be sure to extend well (all across your flow, but particularly in the framework). If its out of the standard repertoire of Phil, be sure to explain it well. This is the lens through which the whole round is viewed through, so make sure to have good clash.

In Novice LD, running anything circuit that your opponent cannot interact with, or is very clearly not familiar with I will be incredibly hesitant to vote on it (Theory, K's, etc.). If both you and your opponent are running circuit content, I'll weigh normally.

I'll keep time, and will stop flowing after the timer is complete, but please keep time yourselves.

Spreading in novice is not ideal. Speed is perfectly fine, but if its at the point where I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it.

Avg. speaks at 27.5.

Cards and Citation are important, but if something is an easily verifiable fact, or an analytic that clearly and logically addresses an argument, it is not a viable argument to simply say "this evidence is carded, they just made an analytic".

Isidore Newman '23 & Macalester '27

Debated in high school- mainly policy.

Send speech docs to ottley.amaia@gmail.com

- I will flow the round, but slow down on tags and authors.

To vote on something, I have to understand it. Make sure to tell a clear story with your arguments and provide a clear impact on why each side matters.

- i.e. make sure you can actually explain your argument--

Be respectful or your speaks will tank.

I like strategic cross-x.

Racism/sexism/homophobia/anti-semitism or any other 'ism' or 'phobic' will give you an immediate L.

...

Tech> Truth

Good with DA and CPs, and I love a good T or FW debate. Ks are great as long as the neg succeeds in establishing a link-- aff should focus on attacking the alt and dismissing the link--- the higher theory it is, the more burden to explain it.

K-affs are fine just make sure to emphasize impacts.

Theory is fine to run. So is impact turn as long as there is some intention to strategy.

I'm definitely willing to vote on zero risk.

Tricks: Annoying but I'll evaluate it the same as any other debate as long as I hear a claim, warrant, and an impact, but I won't like you and you won't like your speaks.

Hello! I am a (relatively new) parent judge at Minnetonka High School. I don't care about disclosure; you can if you want.

Truth > Tech; I try to match up the evidence stated in your cards with the real world. Tricks & unconventional arguments may not get to me well (I enjoy stock arguments more, at least).

I prefer if you stand up.

By the way, I don't usually disclose the winner after rounds; you'll see the results in tab.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

I'm a student at Apple Valley High School and I do Varsity LD.

I have a good understanding of Phil frameworks, but please do a good job extending it and telling me why I should weigh under it for the round. If you run anything circuit as a novice (Theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it, and it will lead to very low speaker points. You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaks at 27.5 and move up based on how the round goes, they are mainly based on how good of a debater I think you are and also if I like your speaking style. :)

I really want to hear wacky impacts, I've never heard someone impact turn extinction or climate change and I think they are fun.

I don't want to hear "speechy" speeches, if I wanted to hear something with emotional appeal or emphasizing I would watch an extemp or an oratory. Cross should be casual like you are just having a conversation with your opponent.

Outside of the framework, everything in the AC and the case part of the NC should be carded.

As a student judge, I value clarity and persuasion. Make sure I as a judge can hear and understand you, especially if you spread. Voters and frameworks are very important, along with general persuasive and well backed and articulated arguments.

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '26

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. I will give you good speaks if you read a new paradox that I've never heard of and you clearly know what it says (or if you invent a paradox/trick). I will also give you good speaks if you execute theory tricks creatively. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive higher speaks.

Ks

I read a lot of ks. I like k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC. Some literature I am fairly familiar with is Deleuze, Nietzsche, Camus, Lacan, Baudrillard and Berardi. If I didn't list something you can still read it this is just some authors I am more familiar with compared to others.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. I.e. 1ar theory before NC theory or vice versa.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify). And, if you throw in a good roast we can have a good laugh.

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.5-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29-29.5: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

28.8-29: You'll probably break.

28.5-28.7: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28-28.5:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.5-28: You did a little worse than average.