My favorite event is Extemp, so I treat all debaters like I would a national finalist in Extemp. Talk at a human pace so that the audience can understand the debate, but feel free to extend your impacts as far as possible pending you keep up the warrants for each claim. Impact turns make debate more fun, try to turn them. Work to cross apply your contentions to your opponents impacts. Making voting claims that I missed during the round won't be used to judge the round. The speakers have a duty to communicate what they want the audience to hear, the judge has a duty to listen to the best of their ability and shouldn't feel burdened by advanced debaters who go beyond the judge's means. I've got a PhD in Communication Studies and embrace a qualitative perspective, values matter. Be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can deliver the argument well, feel free to also be creative. For what it's worth, demanding language is a peeve, as opposed to suggestive; in voters, please tell me what I should(n't) do rather than what I can't do.

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

Background

It is hard to say what I'll be judging you in. I have done a little bit of a lot of things, and a lot of a few things in debate. I would say I identify first and foremost as an extemper. Though this is becoming less true the more debate I coach and judge. My primary debate knowledge base comes from time coaching and judging college parliamentary debate (NPDA). If you are looking to categorize me as one type of judge that's not a bad bet. I've dabbled in CEDA/NDT/CX. Judge a lot of IPDA in college, that's become my primary debate coaching/judging area. PF and LD at high school tournaments with the occasional college LD mixed in.

I would say I am average in theory debate, familiar enough with K's to follow and solid at flowing as long as it is clear and not incredibly fast. If I ignore you and start reading your speech doc exclusively, that's a sign to slow down.

General Philosophies on Debate

In my opinion the debate round is an educational space first. Now, how you define that can be up for debate. I will always appreciate a topical aff, but am not afraid of non-topical positions if they are justified through an educational framework and establish that there is no topical version. I can follow critical theory, and generally enjoy hearing those cases, but will also love and follow political, economic, social etc. Impacts.

As far as topicality goes, I usually lean aff. If you are neg and the aff isn't topical, run T, just make sure to prove abuse and the impacts that it had in round. You might have an alternative definition that is better, but if you don't tell me why it matters then I won't vote for it. Prove the abuse, prove the impact of that abuse. I'll consider both in round and out of round impacts. Don't ignore a T because you think I won't vote for it. I will vote for a topicality press even if I think it's bogus, if the aff just ignores it.

If it is a policy round/format, I am looking for stock issues. Aff has the burden to prove their plan solves a legitimate problem that isn't going away anytime soon. That plan ought to be topical. I am pretty flexible around different formats of debate and approaches to resolutions. But if you are running a policy case make sure your stock issues are present.

NOVICE DEBATERS... Just because it is in the/a provided packet doesn't make it topical. The packet is to help you learn debate, not to help you avoid topicality arguments. You should learn those too.

IPDA Folks... I will vote on a topicality/abuse argument if it is well run and clearly abusive. But most of the time it comes more down to which definition wins to help frame the decision. I think in all my years in IPDA I voted on T once and it was because it was reasonable and not responded to.

Specific Evaluations

These will be framed from a negative position but you can cross apply them to the aff as well.

Dis ads: I will evaluate impacts above all else. Give me something tangible and real. On the other side, if you are attacking a DA or Advantage the link chain is a good place to find offense. I am not a fan of super low probability impacts. Magnitude, timeframe, scope... good to go... low probability though are easy to dismiss for me.

The K: I like Ks. I think it is important to question all our assumptions about government, power, even debate itself. Have a good alt. I don't vote on a K because the government sucks... we all know that. I vote on a K because you provide me something else to vote for.

Counter plans: Similar to the K, I need something else to vote for. I won't vote Neg simply because you poke holes in the Aff case (stock issues being the obvious exception), I need to vote FOR the neg not AGAINST the Aff. I will buy squo arguments, but I usually prefer a counterplan. PICs are also good.

Condo: I think conditionality is stupid. Pick a position and go with it. I know the neg has the right to the squo but if you spend half the round embracing the fact that the status quo is bad for a counter plan I won't buy a sudden switch. that's not fair to the Aff and it's not fun for me if you to suddenly change your advocacy. I am aware that this is not some debate formats allow/encourage conditionality. If for some reason I am judging one of those... just remind me that that's the norm.

IPDA: I will lean on whatever judging criteria you give me. I have, on numerous occasions, voted against the better debater (or even one that won most the points) because the framework went uncontested and favors one side. I won't do work for you, so please be direct and don't just concede definitions because your worried about time.

Speaker Points

Here is how I think of speaker points. The round is won and lost off the evidence and argumentation. Speaker points are about style, execution and how what happens happens. So...

Clarity: I have to be able to understand your arguments. That means they need to be organized clearly and stated concisely. I also have to be able to understand your voice. I can listen fairly quickly but it must be articulate, clear, and have intent behind it.

Tag Development: I look for tags that are concise and direct. Tell me exactly what you are arguing. I am trying to evaluate the round, if I have to take extra time to interpret your tags that brings you down. I always tell my debaters "Don't be cute, be explicit". A cute tag is fun, but won't help your points and might confuse me.

Cross X: Cross X is extremely important in policy debate. It is the only time that there is a direct exchange. My first rule is that you must be respectful to the other debaters. If you are rude then you will be dropped. I also look for strategically used questions. What do you achieve and how do you use it. I would say a strong cross X can do more for speaker points than any one piece of case construction.

Delivery: Mostly an IPDA (sometimes parli) thing. Talk to me. Don't spit evidence and hope that I listen. Look me in the eye and explain to me how this all works. But do not think that "even, calm and indifferent" will win me over. If you are talking about sensitive topics and seem indifferent, I will assume you don't care and you will lose points. Passion is just as important as composure.

Hello my name is Marie Danysh (she/her) and I am a lay and parent judge, this will be my 1st tournament judging

1. Don't be unnecessarily disrespectful or interruptive in crossfire, I want to see a round in good faith

2. I know little to nothing about the topic and a surface level understanding of geopolitics, so make sure to explain in depth your responses, cases, and narrative. Please explains terms and lingo if you insist to use them, even simple arguments like nuclear proliferation I've never heard before and will be need explained. I feel that sometimes debaters will rush through extensions in the backhalf of the round and usually by the end I'm unsure how the topic (NFU) links into your impacts which makes it very hard to vote for you, so be sure to remain clear and calm. There is no reason to rush, I know nothing of tech but do flow (not very well however as I sometimes miss some things), so I'm looking for a more narrative/warrant centered debate.

3. I'm looking for quality over quantity, so I like collapsing and 2-3 good/clear responses instead of 7-8 fast read/poorly warranted prewritten blocks. At the end of the day image your parents sitting in this chair, how might you explain it to them? I'm an outsider looking in after all.

I will be explaining who I vote for to the best of my ability and please ask questions if you like.

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Modupe Daramola, an international relations and history graduate. My goal as a debate judge is to provide participants with opportunity to develop their critical thinking skills without being biased or partial.

I'm a rookie judge and a debate newbie.

Disputes: none

Email address: Modupeoluwadaramola@gmail.com

Individual Notes

When we engage in a discussion, I reward participants who follow the rules and keep to time because delay affects the entire tournament. I give credit to participants who do their research on the resolution and formulate logical arguments.

I value collaboration between teammates as debates should not be done in isolation.

Specific considerations for online debate competitions

Please, if at all possible, leave your cameras on. Special consideration will be given to students who have WiFi or connection problems.

Other comment

It is your responsibility to ensure that your speeches are clear and intelligible. I prefer slow pace speed

My name is Mina Dinh and welcome to my paradigm!

I've competed in debate for 4 years. I did all 4 in Public Forum and 2 years in World Schools in high school. I guess I am what they would call a "flay" judge: someone who is flowing and can evaluate the args but cares about some lay appeal (rhetoric, taglines, very basic presentation skills).

• I can take speed, but no spreading please
• I judge off weighing/impacts and argument extensions.
• I don't flow cross so it doesn't impact my decision, but I might give some pointers on cross. I will say, I love when teams use cross strategically and carry that info into speech.
• No sticky defense! pls extend some of your biggest responses ESP turns!
• “Probability” —> just proven in arg. Don’t really prefer this weighing metric if not done well (not saying its impossible to win on it though!)
• Extensions bare minimum: link and impact. If you just say “extend ——“…. I’m not considering it extended and it makes me a little sad.
• Speaker points: If you're disrespectful in round, I'm going to dock points :( // I wanna be that cool judge that gives you extra points for some niche pop reference, but I don't rlly watch shows or movies. So if you make me laugh in round I'll give you as much of a boost as I can idk

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

Put me on the email chain: vg.nautilus@gmail.com

Dulls HS '23: debated policy all four years + three tournaments in PF

Policy

Prefs:

fyo BUT a speaks fairy

In order of decreasing frequency, rounds I most often debated are:

1. K Aff v. Fwk
2. Policy Aff v. K
3. K aff v. K
4. Policy v. Policy
5. Theory stuff ig

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. I do not know the topic sorry :,(
2. Clarity >>>>>>>>
3. Give the important args (turns, perms, DAs, links) actual names
4. Lots of pen time between flows -- blow raspberries between sheets idc just give me time
5. Send analytics if you're comfortable
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. T-USfg: functional limits check and structural fairness overwriting procedural fairness [attached reason that matters] are persuasive to me.
8. Don't judge kick
9. I don't like when people spam perms -- more than 2 in the 2AC and I may just not flow the rest — oh also an actual perm text (like literally: perm do [actual plan text] and [the parts of the CA that would be executed in the world of the perm]) will get a speaks boost and is probably also helpful when like ~articulating the world of the perm~
10. Offense/Defense paradigm
11. Condo is occasionally bad!
12. Slow down on theory, topicality, framework

PF

Probs pretty tech but not worth wasting your strikes on even if you're a lay debater.

Prog: dislike theory/Ks in PF but also like intervention probably bad so:

• I'll evaluate everything but I'll intervene at the level of speaks (e.g., a valiant effort by a lay debater facing prog will be rewarded; an LD transplant reading theory or Ks badly will not).

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. Set-up an email chain; send all cards for every speech (the underlined, bolded, and highlighted versions) before hand -- it won't count as prep time unless it takes you egregiously long.
2. Label major arguments (e.g., "the credibility turn," "intervention turn," etc.) or at the VERY LEAST number your arguments.
3. Probably more partial to no-brink = no-impact than most PF judges
4. Offense/defense paradigm
5. Asserting your impact has a "greater magnitude, scope, and probability than theirs" is not impact weighing. If y'all are going to insist on "quantifiable impacts" please at MINIMUM give me two numbers (yours and your opponents) in the impact weighing + a reason why yours matters more. I do not, however, think quantification is necessary to building a compelling impact.
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. Kritiks must have a topic link
8. Speed will probably not be a problem for me

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

Notes for novices:

Roadmap: the order in which you will go to arguments during the debate, essentially a table of contents. This is given before you start the time to your speech (eg. "The order is: the Biz Con DA, Case, the DoS CP, and the K.")

Off vs. On Case: Off case positions are either DAs, CPs, Ks, or T shells. On case positions are Case Defense, Impact Turns, Case Turns, Solvency Deficits, etc. I guess technically anything (except CPs and probably T shells) can be an on-case position - it's just a matter of which sheet you want the judge to flow on.

I am a first time judge.

Make sure to speak clearly, no spreading; If you do spread, I reserve the right to immediately drop you.

Do not use any debate jargon, please simplify your speeches.

Warrant your arguments clearly, efficiently, and effectively.

About me:

I have only ever debated on the collegiate level. I started debating for UCF's team in 2022. I do a lot of IPDA debate (more of a "people's" debate similar to PF), and I have also done TIPDA, Parli, and BP. I have experience with policy debate, value-rounds, and fact rounds.

General Notes:

I treat each round tabula rosa

I won't do much work for you. If you think I should know something, then mention it in the round. For example, if your opponent drops something, mention that in your speech!

Arguments should stand on their own. If you use debatey terms, I want to see that explained in laymens terms, and an explanation of what that means and why it's important. Ex. Don't just say "topicality," you need to explain how your opponent doesn't address the topic.

I should be able to follow what you are saying

I like a good, clean debate :)

Also, pretty please treat your opponents with respect. We're trying to have fun and learn, as well as win!

Evidence:

I like evidence to be relevant, digestable, and reputable! I will not treat a source from joemama'sblog.com the same as a source from PEW Research.

Please refer to the actual evidence in the round, not just refer to it by name :) Explain why your evidence is important!

Your cards should be easily accessible - if you spend a long time looking for your evidence I will ask you to drop a card (if it takes you like 5 minutes I'm probably gonna assume you're making it up)

If I think a source sounds fishy, I will reel it in (I will call your card - yes that was an attempt at a joke). Please don't make stuff up. If you don't have the evidence fall back on logic.

"common knowledge" should actually be common knowledge.

Speaking:

I like clear, concise speech. I am perfectly fine with, and would actually encourage, a conversational speech style.

I am fine with speaking quickly, but there is a fine line between speaking fast and spreading. Please don't spread :) If I can't flow it then it can't be in my decision.

Have Fun!

she/they

I debated for West Orange High School for 4 years in PF (& a little Congress). Let's be real, none of us really care about my competitive record. You can look it up on the NSDA website if you want specifics.

Crucial stuff first, then event specific stuff further down. If you still have questions after reading my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask! And ALWAYS feel free to reach out with any further questions - my email is niamh.harrop@gmail.com :)

And, of course, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, etc!

EVIDENCE: This is at the top of my paradigm because it is the most important issue for me. If you are found to be falsifying/misrepresenting evidence, you can expect to lose the round. I will not call for evidence unless told to do so, as I believe that to be a form of judge intervention. That doesn't mean tell me to call for every single card, but if you believe something to be misrepresented, tell me to call for it and I'll do so at the end of the round.

Evidence calls should not take forever. If you take more than two minutes to find a card, I'm going to assume you don't have it and will likely drop your speaks. Once three minutes have elapsed, I'm going to ask that you drop the card and move on. If you provide a cut card and the opponent subsequently asks for a PDF, I'll give you a little more time to pull it up and locate the cited portion.

Also, the NSDA allows you to make a formal challenge against evidence, which will end the round at the point you issue the formal protest and defer judgment on the evidence to me. If you are right and the evidence is falsified, you win, but if I don't believe it has been misrepresented, you will lose. I believe evidence challenges like these are a fantastic tool when used correctly, and if you truly believe that your opponent is violating the evidence standards in a crucial way, I encourage you to utilise this tool.

JUDGING STYLE: Tabula rasa in terms of the topic. I like clear, easy-to-understand extensions - nothing blippy, no extensions through ink, just pure warranted extensions. If you want me to consider an arg, make sure it's in your final speech.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but I hate spreading. I think it's ableist and prevents newer/less funded programs from breaking into the top tiers of debate. Nine times out of ten I will vote against it. Complain about it if you want, I'm just trying to caution you.

If you choose to spread, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask that you add me to the email chain (niamh.harrop@gmail.com) before the round begins, and please send me any cards that you spread in later speeches. Also understand it is going to be much harder for me to follow logic/warranting that you spread but don't include in the email chain. I can do the whole "clear" thing if you like, but chances are I'd be saying it a good amount. I will happily evaluate everything that is read into round if I can follow and comprehend it. However, there may be something you read into round that I miss because of spreading, and by choosing to spread, you accept and understand that this may occur.

PF: I tend to give a little bit of leeway with going over time. I'll flow until about 4:10 in the constructive, for example, but once you hit 4:15, I'm putting my pen down and I'm done paying attention. If your opponents go over time, don't call it out, bc I promise I'm not flowing or considering it. Call it free prep :)

I don't typically flow author names in the constructive. If you prefer to refer to your cards by author name in sum/FF, it helps me if you extend the warrant into rebuttal/sum as well.

Given that you now have three minutes for a summary, I'm a little harsher on what strategic choices are made in the summary speeches for both teams (I only had two minutes and yes I'm just a tad bit salty). I'm not going to vote on terminal defence so it's cool to leave that out of later speeches.

CONGRESS:

I know a lot of Congress competitors don't read paradigms. I can always tell when people don't read mine, and I don't really hold it against anyone in rankings or anything. My paradigm is here to help you understand how to best impress me and earn a high ranking.

I evaluate speaking style as much as I evaluate argumentation. Rehash sucks, we all know it, and after 3-4 people making the same arguments on each side, it's probably about time for something spicy and new. I'm more inclined to rank those with fresher argumentation.

I rank the PO about half the times I judge, and it comes down to a fair and efficient chamber. If you can run things smoothly, fairly, and painlessly, please consider POing.

If there's one thing I can't stand in Congress, it's the constant fight to be the one to "run the chamber" by calling for every motion. IMO it doesn't project the dominance you think it does; I couldn't care less who motions to move to previous questioning. I see this a lot more on the local circuit, but yeah, I'm not a fan.

Related to that is the issue of "politics" and gaming the chamber so that your competitors don't get to speak. In that regard, fair game. I view Student Congress as a mirror of the US Congress; if they set an example and you follow it, I can't fault you for that. That being said, don't allow the push to prevent people from speaking to descend into a mess and waste time (i.e., if you take up 3 minutes arguing over whether we should move to previous questioning, you've prolonged the discussion enough to prevent their speech). If this kind of filibustering occurs, I will probably be harsher in my rankings on the people who filibustered, and will be kinder in my rankings to the competitor who was unable to speak.

Jacob Horvath: I am an international relations major with minors in Russian and Chinese so I enjoy topics of politics both domestic and international. My typical debate style is IPDA as I currently compete at the college level in this style however I have also judged/participated for LD, PF, BP and NPDA.

I keep time in debates although I also expect debaters to keep track of their own as well, I continue to flow arguments made in the 5 seconds after time is over, but any additional arguments after this grace period will not be flowed. After 15 seconds have passed over time I will signal you are over time.

Speaking Preferences: I prefer few clear arguments over many arguments made in an attempt to spread, although I do not deduct speaker points unless I feel it is difficult to follow your case. I do not “work” on ballots, meaning I do not account for my own knowledge or beliefs when writing a ballot, and only consider arguments brought within actual presentation time. This includes if one were to ask a question in cross examination, you would need to make whatever argument “proven” within the cross-x within your speech for me to count it to your case.

In cross examination, I do not care if you interrupt your opponent, as long as there is no insulting or belittling. You may conduct yourself in whatever way you feel emphasizes your case the best.

Dear Contestants,

I expect to see and hear a clear, succinct presentation of your work. I have a teaching background in healthcare and listen and judge clinical presentations. I appreciate positive, non-confrontational attitude from participants. Please try to avoid talking over each other.

Thanks, and good luck.

I am a LAY JUDGE. again- LAY JUDGE. Alter your speeches/rhetoric accordingly. Do not spread, you will be dropped if I cannot keep track of what you say. Racist/disrespectful rhetoric = you getting dropped. Please use credible sources. I will take notes on the round to the best of my ability, but will not “flow” word for word like you do.

I prefer good, clear arguments meeting the same public standards as a journalist. I’m a former Editor of a school newspaper, so I can follow along with most arguments as long as they’re delivered at a reasonable speed. Offer a clear weighing of why you should win, and I will cross reference that with my notes.

I’ll be looking for clear arguments with points listed and enunciation, use signposts and roadmaps to keep things organized for me. Don't go over time.

I am a volunteer judge with three years of judging experience.My judging includes a fair amount of note taking, documentation and attention to details in regards to some of the following.First and foremost I am looking for the team that overwhelmingly persuaded me to believe in their arguments.In doing that I look for confident teams, speed is not an issue as long as it is used wisely.Secondly, I appreciate teams that can properly roadmap and flow through their debate.It helps with my documentation technique and provides a fair understanding of what the intention of the upcoming narrative will entail.Lastly, I look for teams that are passionate in delivering their facts, an emotional angle, a relevant example, or an empathetic point that is backed up by citations will be valuable to me as a judge.

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Hey there!

I used to compete on the national circuit in all forms of debate and extemporaneous speaking.

So, when it comes to judging, here's what I prefer:

1. Keep your off-time road maps quick and clear.

2. I look favorably upon unique, well-thought-out, and researched contentions.

3. I can follow fast speeches, but I'm not into spreading.
4. My judgment will be based on how well you stick to the flow. Make sure to link back to your main points and provide clear impacts. The cleaner and clearer your arguments, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Looking forward to a great round!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

if ur lazy, read the bolded parts

tech > truth

go as fast as you want, but send me your speech doc

email chain: tessica213@gmail.com or selvaganesan.tessica@gmail.com

give me an explicit extension of your link, internal link, and impact in BOTH your sum. and ff; otherwise, I won't vote on that arg

extend all warrants b/c i wont flow ur argument otherwise

if you want me to vote on a turn, weigh it like any offensive ev

frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in 2nd reb., cuz if you don't frontline an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

what i look for in a debate:

• weigh and implicate turns as soon as u can
• in sum. and ff, extend warrants for links, defense, and turns. i dont flow extended taglines
• keep track of ur prep time; I won't stop u if u go over ur prep. but I might tank ur speaks
• signpost, go line-by-line, and gimme an off-time roadmap
• call TKO
• make it easy for me to pull the trigger by extending whatever u want in summary. i won't vote for a team that ghost extends stuff into ff.
  
  • collapsing is NOT a must. if u think u can cover both sides of the flow adequately and weigh, then go for it
• i want clash (obv not when ur opponent clean concedes another contention in rebuttal, but yea).

Weighing:

• Weighing is not "EcOn OuTWeIGhS LiVeS On ScOpE & MaGnITuDe hEhEhE." Do an actual impact calc (not on scope, reversibility, timeframe, etc). i don't mind traditional weighing, but u have a better chance of getting my vote w/ pre-reqs and short-circuits.
• Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.
• link weigh and meta-weigh.
  • link-weigh when u and ur opponent's impacts r the same through strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability, etc
• disguise link turns (i.e. if you are winning an econ argument and you conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war). don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” tho - there’s a difference
• respond to weighing; ill evaluate it as conceded otherwise
• clarity of impact is NOT weighing
• "Probability" is also not weighing on the impact level. do strength of link weighing, but ultimately "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal.

Ks / Trix:

• not the best judge for this b/c I have never watched them get run.
• i do understand the stock stuff (securitization, cap, etc) for Ks, so just warrant whatever you're running.

Theory:

• substance > theory; if you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason b/c it's not a default strategy
• the shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp).
• default to rvi unless told otherwise duh
• Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why.
• weigh your shell vs your opponent's shell, the interp vs the counterinterp, etc to help make my decision easier
• I default toreasonability so that ppl can respond to theory like it's a regular argument. i wont drop anyone for adequately responding to a shell, despite not knowing what a counterinterp is
• If reading theory, structure it properly.
• If ur responding to theory and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 on you, just treat the theory arg logically

the mini theory lesson --> only read this if u dont know how to handle theory or what it is

• the difference - substance is the thing that u usually deal w/; theory is an argument abt whether or not certain args are legitimate
• there are 3 parts to a shell: violation (what did the team ur running theory against do wrong), interpretation (what do you suggest should have been done), and standards/voters (why are they — as in ur opponent — doing whatever they did bad?)
• sometimes it's ok to not have an interpretation b/c I can assume that it's to "not do whatever ur opponent did"
• you have to win ur interpretation n standards while responding to ur opponents interp n standard to win theory
• if the paragraph format makes more sense for u than the shell, then run that b/c it's lowkey better
• I have to see who won the theory debate and then evaluate substance

Framework

• your case has to fall under ur framework. super obv but ppl get it wrong
• if ur against a framework, either gimme a counter-framework or link-in. regardless, u have to answer it.

Other stuff:

• i'll call for cards if i just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or your warrant for the card changes in round
• debates can get heated, but it's not that deep
• if u call for a card and ur opponent takes > 45 secs to get it, then steal prep
• add-ons - nope. u can spread so just read ur 12 contentions in the first speech, and don't read ur add-on as a turn.
• I won't flow over time unless it's under 10 secs
• I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.
• paraphrase ur ev. however, when it gets called for, u better have it carded (tagline, citation, and the actual highlighted part of the card)

Speaks:

will start everyone at 28 (idk why; just what i have been doing recently)

buy me snacks (Reese's, Cheetos (the hot ones), Chobani - Mango flavored, etc): +1

say "game over" twice in a row in ff lol: +0.3

twirl around while using turns: +0.4

give me asian food recs (i like eating; its not b/c I'm hungry all the time but b/c my mouth feels lonely): +1.1

I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate and just not stalk ppl in general. lmk that u have read my paradigm and I'll boost ur speaks :)

Hello competitors!

I am new to speech and debate this year, so I will be deciding my ballot primarily as a lay judge. I have limited experience in forensics. Please be aware of this.

If you wish to use debate-specific jargon please contextualize it, as there are a number of terms that I may be unfamiliar with or new to using. For example: I would not like to hear "...therefore I win on 'scope'". I would like to hear "Therefore, my argument wins on scope, as the number of people affected is greater in...".

Clearly explain your sources even if you have addressed them previously. For example: I would not like to hear "thus the Pew Research card demonstrates this". I would like to hear "Pew Research has identified that 57%...".

Additionally, the authority, relevancy, and recency of studies will be taken into account. Blogs, wikis, subjective pieces, and so on, will not be viewed with the same credibility as trusted sources.

Spreading will not be tolerated. The only spreading I will be engaging with is Nutella over my crackers in the judge room.

I want a good clean fight, nothing below the belt.

Best of luck to you all,

- Chase

I am a PF parent, a returning judge.
After reading over many other PF judges' paradigms in order to evaluate my own preferences, I'll summarize:

1. Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

2. Evidence and a very sound logical foundation for your case are critical - to me these are table stakes upon which speaking ability and style rest. If big leaps don't make sense, they aren't going to resonate. Sometimes simple and succinct is better than overly complex.

3. PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

4. "Cute" underdeveloped extensions/arguments wont win with me. To borrow from another judge paradigm "Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event - so do that with some humor and panache.(Bilal Butt)"

SCORING: (also borrowed - thank you Bilal and Mollie Clark)

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior