Speech Paradigm

H! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for speech. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. All topics of speeches are acceptable to me and a more or less emotional piece, performance, speech topic or approach will not automatically score you higher in a round.

Foundational speaking skills are taken heavily into consideration when judging a performance.

Volume -Being clearly heard and not too quiet is essential for engagement with the audience.
Gestures -A moderate balance of gestures are important for visual engagement of the speaker or your characters during a performance.
Eye Contact - Eye contact with an audience shows confidence as well as creates further visual engagement with an audience.
Memorization - Memorized pieces are required in order to score at the top of a round. Memorization means fluency and shows the dedication and practice
Stumbling - If you stumble, fumble your words or other spoken errors. Do not worry, just breathe and continue. You want your speech as confidence as possible.
Emotion - Passion, emotion and tone are very important for conveying the mood of your words to an audience
Stage Presence - A strong speaker will captivate the stage and will make for a much higher score over the course of a round.
Content - If your content is too simple, or not depthful, it will most likely hurt my interest in your piece

Remember to have fun, performance is a gift. You are all very talented and should be proud of your performance.

Debate Paradigm

Hi! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for debate. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. I approach debates with an open-mind and no inherent bias towards any argument pro or con. Tech, Circuit, Flow Judge. This means I take notes on everything and prioritize technical arguments and abilities over emotional narratives.

Very Important

I am not a fan of judge interference. This means I do not like to interject or connect the dots for your team. Succinct explanations are essential for me to be willing to favor your arguments. Lines like, "this helps all of the economy, or this helps society be better" without any explanation is going to be a meaningless sentence. Furthermore, saying "we had bigger impacts, or we have more evidence" without explanation will also hold zero weight in my considerations for your team.

Views on Evidence vs Analytics

1. Firstly, analytics are not a substitute for evidence. This means that you cannot say you have proven a point which is solely built on conjecture and expect me to believe it.
   
   
2. Secondly, evidence must be portrayed accurately. I will ask for a card myself if I feel it is not accurate or too perfectly read. Misrepresented evidence will hurt the overall persuasiveness of your argument.
   
   
3. Thirdly, I weigh evidence as having more value than analytics. This means that if you try to outweigh or deny an argument with solely logic, it will most likely not hold in weight or persuasiveness compared to an effective piece of evidence.

General Things

1. I live for the line-by-line debating.
2. A rebuttal that clearly signposts which part of a contention you are responding to will be taken more effectively.
3. Direct responses with warrants are taken at more value and indirect general responses.
4. Line-by-line frontlines with signposts will be taken at more value than indirect general responses.
5. Spreading is fine for me, and I will not count against it you as long as the speaker has clarity.
6. If you insult your opponent during cross-examination with an attack outside the scope of the debate, I will vote against your team.
7. I flow crossfire examination and take heavy consideration on what happens during crossfire. That being said, if you keep cutting your opponent off and then say, "they did not respond to our points," I will not take that comment at any value. Let your opponent answer the question.
8. Clashes which clearly establish the impact weighing mechanisms (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope, reversibility) are very effective.
9. No new arguments in Final Focus. New arguments will not be flowed or given any weight in the debate.

Expectations:

Clarity: Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation: Present well-developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash: Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing: Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect: Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

Thank you and I look forward to watching and judging.

parent judge. I like signposting and logical arguments. Speak slow please.

I have experience of judging debate for few years. Few things I am follow when judging

1. Have students understood the basic issue being discussed.
2. Are they directly addressing topic with specific evidence
3. Explained why their points are better than other side.
4. clearly state the topic and summarize the summary at the end.

Enjoy debating and learning !

add me to the chain:anshumanarun2008@gmail.com

· Collapse in 2nd rebuttal. You must respond to all turns on offense and defense on the argument you collapse on.

· Weighing can start whenever but must be in 1NR or 2AR. I will not evaluate new weighing in 2nd Summary. I am cool with probability weighing. Weighing must be comparative or I will not evaluate it. It is up to YOU to tell me what weighing I should prioritize.

· If you spread (250+ wpm), I need a case doc. Spreading without giving me your case doc will result in a maximum of 27 speaks and I will be much more likely to miss your cards. Also, be clear. If I don't understand you for whatever reason, I quite literally can't vote for you.

· I don't flow cross. If you want to get something from cross on my flow, you must mention it in a speech.

· Signpost everything. Roadmap can be as simple as "Aff, Neg" or "My case, their case" as long as you signpost properly (unless you're reading offs, then I would like "1 off, 2 off, substance" or something like that)

· Turns must be implicated! If you don't tell me why I prefer your turn over their link, I will treat the turn as a disad. I don't care about your turn if there's no link and the opponent still wins their offense.

· If your opponent's evidence is miscut, call it out and I'll look at it. I will only look at evidence if I am told to in round. Evidence must be carded. If not, my bar for responses is super low. I don't really care all that much about paraphrasing as long as you have a cut card to back up the rhetoric. Be rational and reasonable as to how and to what extent you paraphrase, obviously.

Hey, I'm Tiffany! I'm a VLD debater, but treat me like a lay judge. I have done lots of lay debating, and I've also done circuit debates with critical arguments.

spyhorse8@gmail.com

Things I value:

• Weigh impacts clearly
• Extend your key arguments into the rebuttal speeches
• Write the ballot for me
• Clarity>speed: I can't vote for arguments I don't understand.

Remember to be respectful of your opponents!

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.

Hi! My name is Anchal and I have been competing in Public Forum for 4 years. Keep it simple, make sure you have good roadmaps, warrants, and impacts that are extended throughout the debate. WEIGH in your speeches and do the weighing comparatively. Good with speed, don't spread (send speech docs if you do). Clean cut cards + fast evidence exchanges pls.

If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them in round.

Add me to the email chain: anikabhutani25@mittymonarch.com

I’ve been doing varsity debate for 3 years at Archbishop Mitty High School.

Paradigm

Tech>Truth

Signpost, and try not to spread as much as possible. I also won’t be flowing cross, so anything you believe is important should be expanded on in the following speeches.

Feel free to run Ks or Theory if you’re comfortable (heavy on the comfortable part).

Tell me which arguments are the most important in the round via weighing between worlds, impacts, etc.

Touch on clash! I'm a big fan of clash in debate and think it's extremely underrated. Skirting all of your opponent's arguments and giving me a 3-minute oratory might sound good, but if it doesn't engage with the substance in the round, it'll probably do more harm than good.

Parli - Ask POIs! They’re essential for clarity and in my opinion not used enough.

General rule of thumb: Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L.

Hi my name is Gayathri and I compete in LD at Notre Dame

Some things to note:

- Please be respectful to each other

- If you truly drop an argument and your opponent calls it out, please don't bring it up again (I wont consider it)

- i'll do my best to keep time but time yourselves as well as your opponents

- if you tend to spread send me your speech ahead of time

- include me in any chains at gayathribimal03@gmail.com

Good luck and have fun!! :)

I judge based on strength of arguments and skill of arguing.

I participated in policy CX debate in high school.

Competed on national circuit for PF 2019-2021.

Email: daniel.basispf@gmail.com

Never competed in LD before. Treat me as Lay.

Assume I know nothing about the topic. Will probably like PF-style arguments

For PF and LD when applicable:

Standard Tech over Truth (for substance)

1. Please weigh often and early
2. Defense is adhesive and I presume 1st speaking team
3. Strong logic > weak evidence
4. Not great with speed, progressive args, and theory. Not voting for something I don't understand.
5. Not looking at speech docs/email chains unless a team specifically asks me to or if there is an evidence dispute. All cards must be read in speeches coherently

Feel free to ask any other questions before the around and lightly postround.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily in PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

I am a parent judge. I had some debate experiences in the past and I have also given many speeches to a variety of audiences in the past. It is important to ensure your arguments are sound, relevant and coherent. In addition to elaborate your arguments with evidence, ensure to address your opponent's points clearly and logically.

Speak clearly and in a reasonable speed.

Be on time, and dress appropriately.

Show respect to each other.

and finally, relax and have fun.

I look forward to seeing you at the tournament.

add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com

Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals on this unsc topic lol

Tech> truth

Weigh

Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure

I am unfamiliar with Ks run at your own risk

flintridge prep '23, uc berkeley '27

i debated under flintridge prep cy (or yc) and did ok

put me on the email chain: danielchoi758@berkeley.edu

tldr

• send speech docs before speech whenever u read new cards
• weigh
• extend
• run whatever u want

general (this is all pf specific)

• tech > truth
• frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• extend everything ur going for in summary
• collapse
• if it's not in summary it can't be in final focus; unless it's new weighing in first final or responding to the new stuff brought up in first final
• post rounding is fine idc

things i like

• weighing (not the bs prewritten weighing u can say for any round but the comparative prereq, short circuit, etc that requires a little more thinking)
• actual clash
• speed if you articulate well
• speech docs before your speech
• not misrepresenting evidence
• tricks
• staying within the time of your speech
• dr. pepper

things to know

• PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME JUDGE EVERY 10 SECONDS
• if evidence is disputed throughout the round then i will call for it.
• i will not time anyone so if ur opponents go over time then hold up ur stopwatch (do not use a timer that rings because it's rude and obnoxious. if u see that i'm flowing even though time is up over 10 seconds, knock on the table a couple times so i look at u with ur timer up)
• it's a debate so you can run any argument you want as long as you defend it better than ur opponents' responses against it
• slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
• dont ask every single person in the round individually if they're ready
• i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1; just give ur speech

how i evaluate rounds

1. i see who's winning the weighing
2. if you are winning the weighing, i look to your case and see if your winning your case. if you are, then congrats, you won the round
3. if you are not winning your case then your weighing doesn't matter so i look to see if your opponents are winning their case. if they are, then they win.
4. if neither side weighs but both are winning their cases, then i will break the tie by calling for your evidence to see which sides' is better
5. if both sides have equally good/bad evidence, i will presume neg

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and a NIETOC final in Informative. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

DEBATES:

I do not judge very frequently. I do keep some notes.

I prefer debaters speakat a conversational rate. Spread or a fast rateof delivery has made it difficult for me tounderstand arguments in the past.

Debated in a mostly lay circuit for all of high school, debated nat circuit too. Qualled to CHSSA in PF 2024, Qualled to Silver TOC 2024.

All Debate: On case, treat me like a lay judge, but I do flow. Don't spread. Explain and weigh your case well and you'll probably win.

PF: Collapse on a few points in summary and final focus; simplify the round. I don't care about frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. I keep track of actually dropped arguments, so if you're wrong and don't give a full response to that argument, I won't flow it. Please explain the reasoning behind why you're correct, not just "My opponent doesn't have any evidence/card for xyz thing." If I don't understand what your case is, I'll have a very hard time evaluating it. Have clear and simple links to your impacts. If you run theory, it must be justified well. That being said, you can run it in front of me, but I may not buy it if the standards for the shell are insufficient.

See Caleb Smith’s paradigm for clarification. Lennis Han's and Noah Lee's are great too.

Parli: Have fun, run whatever. I'll buy anything theoretical. Don't make up stuff that's obviously untrue.

Speech: Be appropriately expressive for your event. If you try to make me cry in OA I will drop you. Actually write a speech for your event. Please don’t spend 7 minutes on your observation in OA. Get to your plan already.

30 Speaks if you play for Coast, Seaside, or Wave VBC Travel. (I will check the rosters)

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.

Here's the TL;DR version of the paradigm

I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging.

Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as judge to be in the role of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I will use the information, arguments and clash presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.”

To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted.

Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.

Risk-taking is fine as long as you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. As long as everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.

To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Accordingly, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.

Some quick, event-specific notes:

--Policy: I am not going to be on the email chain because this is not an essay contest, this is an oral persuasion event. I will judge it based ONLY on what I hear and understand. If you spread, I am not going to be able to follow you. You will likely lose the round unless your opponent is foolish enough to do the same forcing me to determine who lost by less. You can try and debate your K, or your T, or any other letter of the alphabet, but if you do, it better clearly relate to the basic premise of the resolution, because that is the show I bought a ticket to see. Not saying you can't run them, just they need to be relevant to the spirit of the resolution.

--LD. This isn't policy. DO NOT SPREAD. Be clear on your value and value criterion and explicitly tie your contentions back to them or you will hurt yourself. Otherwise the notes for policy apply.

PF: This is an event intended for a lay judge to be able to adjudicate. Even though I am not a lay judge, I will judge this as though I walked in off the street and never judged before in order to stay true to the spirit of the event. Make sure you engage accordingly. In other words if you treat this like a mini-policy round, it will go poorly.

If you have any questions about this, ASK!

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

Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate:

First and foremost, have fun

Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.

My philosophy

I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.

My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic

In ALL debate events, I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.

--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.

Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?

Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that includes speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.

I HATE spreading

SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if it is too fast.

I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution

I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.

Agnosticism ≠ idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech

I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.

Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know

The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.

I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it

This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.

Part of being an effective and successful debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.

I reward risk-taking and humor

Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.

I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion

Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?

How I weigh your arguments

The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.

--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.

Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con

The affirmative/pro always has the burden to convince me to change the status quo and in a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard. In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.

Dropped arguments do not always matter to me

Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.

I never allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.

Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.

Give your citations context so I can give them credibility

Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written.

I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs

While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:

--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.

Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me

Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:

--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.

I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.

Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins now." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.

The game is the game

If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.

I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense

If you make faces, gestures, or otherwise show disdain for the person speaking, know it will negatively impact your score. Also, anything you say or do that demeans the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.

hi! my name is yulong (he/him) and I compete in LD debate at notre dame san jose (so keep in mind that I'm very familiar with the current LD topic).

• please be kind and respectful to your opponent; I do not tolerate any offensive language or behavior. I'd prefer if you referred to your opponent with gender-neutral pronouns and terms. :)
• I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand your arguments (+ send me your case docs if you do)!
• I will be flowing the round, so I'd appreciate clear signposting and roadmaps.
• I will also time your speeches and prep and, although I allow 10 seconds of leeway, I will not consider arguments made past that point.
• LD: prove that your case wins under the winning framework. clearly extend + weigh your impacts.

email me at yulong.gong2008@gmail.com if you have any questions!

have fun and good luck! :)

I consider myself a novice judge, but I do have a PhD in Communication Studies from USC, and a daughter who has competed in various forms of debate for the last three years. Please discuss your frameworks, include road maps, and explain terms and jargon for me clearly. I absolutely hate spreading, but understand it is a part of the competition (especially for many of you in policy). I am good at weighing the strength of arguments, looking carefully at citations, and I do consider if an argument goes unaddressed when flowing. Respect towards your competitors is important, but feel free to attack their evidence or arguments. Let's have fun!

My email is michelle@gradis.us

I competed in public speaking and debate for six years and have now judged and coached it for four. I prioritize information and my flow above all else. Please talk at a conversational pace, I would rather be able to understand and catch everything than you throw every single point you could possibly think of.

If it matters to you, I used to make critical and performance based arguments. I have coached all types. I generally like all arguments, especially ones that come with claims, warrants, impacts, and are supported by evidence.

Do you (literally, WHATEVER you do). Be great. Say smart things. Give solid speeches and perform effectively in CX. Win and go as hard as it takes (but you dont have to be exessively rude or mean to do this part). Enjoy yourself. Give me examples and material applications to better understand your position. Hear me out when the decision is in. I saw what I saw. Dassit.

Add me to the email chain- lgreenymt@gmail.com

My "high" speaker points typically cap out around 28.9 (in open debate). If you earn that, you have delivered a solid and confident constructive, asked and answered questions persuasively, and effectively narrowed the debate to the most compelling reasons you are winning the debate in the rebuttals. If you get higher than that, you did all of those things AND THEN SOME. What many coaches would call, "the intangibles".

Speaking of speaker points, debate is too fast and not enough emphasis is put on speaking persuasively. This is true of all styles of debate. I flow on paper and you should heavily consider that when you debate in front of me. I am a quick and solid flow and pride myself in capturing the most nuanced arguments, but some of what I judge is unintelligible to me and its getting worse. Card voice vs tag voice is important, you cannot read analytics at the same rate you are reading the text of the card and be persuasive to me, and not sending analytics means I need that much more pen time. Fix it. It will help us all. Higher speaker points are easier to give.

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to observe and participate in your debate.

TG

Hello everybody, I'm Eva Grover. I'm a lay/parent judge with some former debate experience.

What matters most: For me, the most important thing in a round is cleanliness. You could give me the best evidence and case in the world, but if I can't understand your arguments, it doesn't do anything for you as a debater or for me as a judge. Throwing around fancy terms that don't add any value or purpose to the round means nothing to me, and I won't buy it. Simply put, clarity is key.

Speech preferences: Even though I will be taking notes in the round, i'd like it if you don't read fast pls. If I can't comprehend what you're saying, then I can't write it down, and there will be no way for me to remember what you said when it's time to decide the verdict of the round.

(Side note: As a judge, I won't be keeping track of time. Competitors should keep track of time and prevent each other from going overtime.)

Speaker Points: I would say that I'm decently generous in terms of speaker points. As long as I can hear you properly, you aren't mumbling, and you sound confident, I will give you good speaks.

Argumentation: While this should go without saying, I'm looking for an argument that is clean and well- written with reliable sources. Your contentions and rebuttals should be backed with good evidence, and more importantly, good logic.

Don't make me connect the dots. I want you all, as debaters, to put the pieces together and prove to me why you win.

My email address is eva.grover@gmail.com

I am a new lay judge who has judged a few rounds in the past. I will take notes (not flowing) In a good debate I look for: Statistics, good analytics, and argument extensions. I also look for good arguments in rebuttal and clean frontlining.

On the scale of 1 to 10; 10 being super fast and 1 slow; Please try to go at 7 pace

For cards and links, please use chat directly

What I look for in the winning team:

Clear articulation of your case
Using data points to support your case to show the impact of magnitude
Using logic to elaborate your case and against your opponents
Going deeper into cards/links and expanding on your findings

Hello, my name is Lachlan (he/him/his) and I'm a senior (12th grader) at Crystal Springs Uplands School. I've done parli debate since 8th grade. Honestly, I've been a pretty mediocre debater most of my career but this year, my partner (Lauren Liu) and I made it to quarters at the CHSSA tournament which was kinda cool since we were the first team from our school to qualify to the tournament! Here are some short paradigmatic preferences. I've only debated in parli so this is most applicable to that format but please still read if you're in a different event.

1. Truth > Tech to a certain extent. I won't vote on friv t but will drop your opponents if they're actually being abusive and you prove so. I discourage you from reading a full-on theory shell or k since this is a pretty lay tournament, but if you really want to please explain very thoroughly.
2. Terminalize and weigh impacts. Don't just tell me "Economic collapse is bad," explain the full link and impact chain. Tell me how I should be evaluating impacts (magnitude, scope, reversibility, timeframe). Otherwise, I'll default to scope and magnitude.
3. Set up framework strategically. I'll default your weighing mech to net benefits or utilitarianism otherwise.
4. I'm ok with tag-teaming but the active speaker has to repeat what their partner said.
5. You can go somewhat fast. I'll probably understand and process everything you say but can't guarantee I will write/type down everything if you're rushing through ~3+ contentions and responses on off-case in one speech.
6. POIs are good and I will flow them as offense/defense. I encourage everyone to ask at least one per speech. If you don't respond to at least one POI, I'll give you lower speaker points. However, please don't ask more than 3 per speech, that will also reduce your speaks.
7. I will protect time. If a blatantly new argument is brought up in a rebuttal speech, I won't flow it. However, still POO just to get in the habit of doing so. No crossfire, just state your POO in under 15s and let your opponents respond to it in under 15s.
8. Please don't shadow extend. MG should bring up any argument the PMR collapses to.
9. Signpost and stay organized. This will affect your speaks. I hate having to jump around my flow.
10. I stop flowing right when your time stops but will allow you a 10-second grace period to keep speaking. Off-time road maps are ok but limit it to like 15s max. Don't prep in between speeches.
11. I'm mostly Tabula Rasa. If you say something that's reasonable, I'll believe you unless your opponents say otherwise. However, if you tell me Elon Musk launched a manned spaceship to Mars and discovered it's made of cheese or something equally ridiculous, I won't believe you. Assume that I have a basic understanding of current events but still explain all evidence thoroughly.
12. I'll disclose my decision and provide verbal feedback after round. Also, I'm a very emotive person in terms of facial expressions so if I'm frowning or smiling don't read too much into it.
13. Be respectful and have fun! If you make me laugh during round, I'll give you an extra speaker point lol. Debate is a game at the end of the day :)

Please contact lguo24@crystal.org for additional feedback or my flow of your round.

My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY

All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Hi! My name is Alicia Hall, I am from Arizona and I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school and I am now competing as a college student in speaking competitions. I love to see when someone can take whatever topic they're using and transcend the basis of the topic.

Arguments: You can run any argument you like, as long as you can give proper context and explain the argument well in relation to the resolution (or if you run an alternative argument, explain why your argument is better to look at than the resolution). I'm not a very lay judge, but I'm also not the most progressive when it comes to new forms of argumentation.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hello! My name is Annika and I currently do Public Forum debate at the highschool level.

_______

What I look for:

Strong argumentation

Swagger drip

Automatic 29.9 speaks if you have a cool pun or joke

What not to do:

Don't be rude during cross

No faking evidence

Always include me in evidence chains --> annikameih@gmail.com

Best of luck ! :)

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Hi! I’m Allegra, junior at Menlo-Atherton. I’ve been doing parli for a couple years mostly with this one.

I’ll judge whatever debate you want to have.

Don’t go overtime, avoid insensitive language, call the POO, and be kind. Tech>Truth.

My favorite fruits are strawberries. Ask questions before round or email after: allegra@hoddie.net

Contact

My email is disclosuretheory@gmail.com, i'm fine with either email or speechdrop, but generally i prefer email for prelims and speechdrop for elims where there are a lot of ppl watching

Background

As a debater I primarily read policy, theory, and K, with the occasional tricks round mixed in. As such, I feel most confident in my ability to evaluate policy, theory, and K rounds, though I have really only read Cap, Set Col, and other generic Ks, so my knowledge of most K lit (especially high theory Ks) are minimal. I'm not a great judge for dense phil, though I know a little bit of Kant.

Prefs

Theory/T - 1

Policy - 1

K - 2

Tricks - 3

Phil (Kant) - 3/4

K (high theory) - 4/5

Phil (not Kant) - 5/Strike

Details

I will evaluate anything with a claim, warrant and impact, regardless of how stupid or "offensive" it may be, provided it isn't racist/sexist/homophobic/etc but genuinely anything else is fine

I don't flow cross and cross is nonbinding (but lying is not cool either)

I am completely neutral for cp competition debates and tfwk/colt/whatever vs K affs -- I've been on both sides of these debates and I honestly have no opinions

I suck at flowing so if you wanna extempt a bunch of tricks at 300wpm I might will not catch them. Also if you're going for an argument in the 2AR/NR please spend more than like 5 seconds extending it, even if it's just an IVI or a trick

I presume DTD, CI, and no RVIs on theory and topicality but that's 100% debateable and I am happy to vote for an RVI provided the abuse story is clear

Be clear. Please. I don't backflow and I won't vote on something if I didn't catch it. On the same note SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS THAT AREN'T DISCLOSED. I get that you don't think it's fast because you're reading off the doc but if you aren't clear and I don't have a doc you get 2 clears and then I just won't flow you. Either 1] slow down 2] send analytics or 3] stop docbotting

Tricks can be funny sometimes. Read them at your own risk :) Don't expect me to catch (and therefore vote on) extempted tricks.

I'm happy to disclose speaks if you want but your speaks are mine (though they go up if you give me snacks/drinks)

I really don't understand why people have such strong preferences about whether you call them by their name or "judge", but I don't really care. I guess it's kinda weird when people I've never met before call me Toby but I don't have anything against it.

If you're a novice/middle schooler who just read through this and is totally confused

Don't worry about anything you read above. I will decide the round based on who is winning on the flow. I will not vote on anything other than who is winning the substantive aspects of the debate. My evaluation of the round will be based on who is winning that their impacts outweigh under the winning framework. Arguments that are "dropped" or unresponded to are presumed to be true, so be sure to respond to all of your opponent's points.Please try to signpost clearly in rebuttals and do a lot of weighing in the 2AR/NR, and make sure to compare your impacts to your opponents' and explain why you outweigh. If you are a novice/middle schooler but understand circuit debate, feel free to do whatever you are most comfortable with. I will neither reward nor penalize those who debate utilizing a "circuit" or "progressive" style.

Hey everyone,

First of all, congratulations for making it to State! It took a lot of hard work for all of you to get here, so you should all feel proud of yourselves.

A bit of background on me: I'm currently in high school and compete in Public Forum and Parli for debate.

Even though the debate events are different, my main criteria for each event are the following:

• Weigh: This is really going to be important in order to prove why you won. Whether it's your value or just another WM, it's important to impact your WM.
• Aggressiveness: Personally, I like aggressiveness in debate, however not to a point where it becomes disrespectful. Please show respect towards your opponents.
• Speed: Don't spread. Spreading doesn't help you and it doesn't help the judge. If I can't understand what you're saying, it becomes extremely disadvantageous for you.
• I expect all of you to be respectful of the speech times as well
• I will be flowing, but don't assume that I'm catching every argument. Make your arguments and clash clear.

Here are the specific things I'm looking for, for each event:

PF:

• Weighing mech: What does this round come down to?
• Consistency: contradictions in your points that either the opponent called out or left alone
• Impacts: make sure that you really access your impacts because I'm not going to put the pieces together, you need to do that yourself
• Quality of Args: Do you know your topic well enough to come up with a strong defensible case? You've had a lot of time to prep, I wanna see the results of that effort. The research that you did beforehand will be evident in the way you know the topic.
• Clash: make sure to delink their arguments
• Crossfire: this is primarily where I will measure how you defend your case. Make sure to not interrupt each other

Parli:

• Weighing mech: did you uphold and impact that throughout the round
• I'm not looking for the quality of your arguments here since 20-minute prep barely gives you time to do that, but I am looking for how you defend your case
• POIS: don't misuse
• POOs: Don't misuse
• Clash: keep in mind that there is always something to say. Don't leave anything unrefuted.
• Delivery: not super important, but good to have

LD: (This is the event I have the least amount of knowledge in, so it really comes down to the following few things for me)

• Weighing: how does your value override theirs?
• Clash: how do you disprove your opponent's args
• Quality of args: do you know your topic well enough to come up with a strong, defensible case? You've had a long time to prep, I wanna see the results of that effort. The level of prep that you did will be evident when you debate.
• Cross Ex: primarily where I see you defend your case. Make sure to not interrupt each other.

Good luck!

Hi,I’m a parent judge and I’m excited to participate in this year’s debate circuit.

I’m more of a flow judge who does not prefer “spreading” so maintain a comfortable pace that ensures that I can capture the essence of your contentions, the evidence that you use and your rebuttals.

Best of luck in the tournament!

A rising junior at Bellarmine. Primarily Policy, but competed in LD in middle school.

For lay debate clash over arguments and highlight a good narrative within your constructive speeches. In rebuttals, write the ballot for me and signpost as you clash with the opponent's arguments. Clearly highlight the reasons you should win at the top of your last rebuttals. A good cross ex can change the debate. I keep my mind open until the last speech so don't give up mid round.

I am a flow judge, whether it is a lay round or fast.

In LD specifically there should be a lot of preemption in the negs last rebuttal

No preference over what speed the round goes as long as both competitors agree pre-round. If speed is important to how you debate, then I have no problem if you confirm the speed with your opponent in the room itself.

In lay rounds, speaks are given based off of delivery, cross-ex, fluency, ethos, etc. 28.5 is the base standard, going up and down from there.

Please don't address as judge

Have fun.

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

im not strict with things i specifically look for in a debate round but i will judge off my flow so make sure to respond respond respond (but also collapse if needed)

please dont spread and also don't bring a whole new argument you never read in rebuttal suddenly into summary.

don't steal prep time and i won't be timing you guys but please be honest with how much time you took.

i don't have a lot of rules but dont be racist, sexist, or just any hate in general.

ALWAYS be respectful to your opponents and judge and i will call you out if you're extremely rude.

also please please please do not be a suck up to judges its annoying and have fun debating

I value debaters who are respectful, well-prepared and organized. Rather than tons of remotely relevant evidence delivered in a hasty way, an in-depth understanding of the topic accompanied by a handful of strong, to-the-point evidence carries more weight in my opinion.

bye #lol

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

add me to the email chain: conofthemillenium@gmail.com

tech>truth

Just don't speak too fast.

Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.

General Notes for speakers:

· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished

· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

Arguments and Cases:

· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)

· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.

· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.

· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.

· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”

· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.

VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.

Speaker scores

The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria

· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.

· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.

· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.

Articulate well. If I don't understand, then, no matter the quality or substance of the argument, I can't vote on, understand, or evaluate the idea.

Tell me why to vote for you. Tell me what to do in each area/contention/argument/section of the flow. Minimize judge intervention because I don't want to decide the debate. I want you to decide the debate so that you can show your skills but also so that you're not mad, confused, etc. at the judge intervention.

Please remember to have fun, be confident, and be professional within the round!

Don't spread, I'm a student that goes to UC Berkeley.

I am a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, with degrees in Economics and Political Science. I have overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level. My primary event, however, was Impromptu.

DEBATE:

Things I look for:

1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.

2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.

3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.

SPEECH:

Things I look for:

I'm a little bit more flexible on IE events because by nature, they are supposed to represent and express who you are as a person. Unless excessive (greater than 10 seconds or whatever guidelines I receive by tournament), I don't penalize for going over time unless you and another competitor are equal in every other deliverable. Just make sure you address your chosen topic (for spontaneous/extemporaneous events like Extemp, IE, etc.) or clearly state why the topic you're speaking about matters (especially for prepared pieces). Sometimes, I have watched five consecutive pieces about death and suicide, but not a one told me/expressed to me why their piece was unique.

DEBATE:

Things I discourage:

1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.

2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.

Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.

SPEECH:

Things I discourage:

Again, there will be less things here for speech because of the flexibility of it. I think the only thing I'll say about this is don't do something super extreme or way out of the ordinary (e.g., asking for audience participation). Obviously, doing something like opting to use notes will heavily penalize you. Otherwise, speech is all about trial and error -- so don't be afraid to take risks and get feedback.

(B.A.N.)

Hi I'm Kanishk! I'm currently a senior at Los Altos High School. I'm part of the MVLA debate team and I've been debating for 4 years!

I usually debate lay ld, but im also familiar with pf and a little parli.

will drop if you spread, I'm just not comfortable with it.

theory/k: definitely no k's. theory is okay, but i may get lost. i don't hate tech, it's just that im not familiar with it enough to trust myself to evaluate it correctly.

For novice/ms debate:

Please extend your points in your 2nd(1AR and NR for LD) speeches, or I will consider them dropped. (please do this!!)

Monte Vista '26 & 5th year in PF, NX/USX, Parli, & LD.

Add me to the email chain: zaramd220@gmail.com

I've judged PF, trad & circuit LD, MS PF, Congress, Impromptu, HI, and Info (speech events very minimally). Familiar with most events (exceptions are POI & Declamation) but I’m a debater. I don't judge often at all but when I do I mostly judge online. Always feel free to ask questions before and after the round! I always like giving feedback and feel free to post round me for clarification. I also get told often that I look super mean, trust me I’m probably just as nervous as you are. If I’m straight faced during your debate I’m just locked in.

General:

My thoughts on the way I eval rounds is as tab as possible. I'll vote on any argument proven true in the round.

Here's a list of a couple of ways I view debate/random things I like to see:

1] args consist of at least a claim and a warrant. The claim and warrant must relate to each other to be an argument (i.e. it has to be sequitur). Otherwise, I won't eval it.

2] I don’t flow off the doc, so clarity>speed.

3] Post rounding is good in certain respects but

1. [NOTE]: If you're competing at the CHSSA tournament do not attempt to post round me

2. won't change my decision (but might change your speaks!) so please be respectful to your competitor and I

3. should be educational

4. If it's any help, just request that I email you my flow and I'll send it over.

4] If you spam “they have no evidence” in a speech where your opps gave you analytics I will be upset. “They conceded everything” makes me angrier. If they DID give you evidence and DID NOT concede you're probably getting dropped.

5] Don't say "judge". You're convincing an audience that I'm a part of. If you say it more than once I'm likely lowering speaks.

6] Hit a dance if you finish a speech early and I'll give you 30 speaks. Running 30 speaks theory does nothing for me or you.

PF:

Nothing prog here yet because it's just an overview for CHSSA but my thoughts about trad apply here besides everything on value weighing. Besides that, I want to see good weighing mechanisms in summary and a collapse that's easy to follow. If your rebuttal speaker speaks fast I can keep up. FF should be slower though. Pre-req weighing is fire, you should do it. Same with hijacks.

Parli:

WEIGHING. Please weigh I'll be so happy. If neither side weighs I will probably give lower speaker points out because it makes it a lot harder for me to judge the round. Also NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE LAST 2 SPEECHES (the last opp and last prop of 4 & 5 mins respectively). It's not legal and it makes the debate so difficult to understand and I default on clarity. Use your POI's respectfully. I think that counterplans are fun but don't make every response on the aff just implications of the counterplan. Let's also not run theory if your opponents don't understand it. On the off chance I vote off of it, it's a low point win unless they made an egregious violation, hence the reason for running the shell.

Trad LD:

I previously mainly competed in trad LD at MV and prefer most of the argumentation as opposed to circuit. While I believe that circuit allows for a larger amount of perspectives and usually helps with diversifying argumentation/helping with critical thinking since you never really know what to expect, traditional debating appeals to me due to the element of more understandable speeds to a larger audience and more topical arguments that are resolution central. Basically, I tend to resonate more with trad because substance debate on what the NSDA verbatim gives us every two months is something I believe in (If you couldn’t already guess, T is good). Debate should be accessible. While circuit strategy appeals to me more, I think lay debating necessitates a lot of strategy because of speed and time limitations, and I definitely reward seeing that shown in round. See Madeleine Yuan's paradigm for more in depth. You can think of me as flow, but here are my standards:

v/vc’s I love (that being said if you misconstrue these I will cry): almost anything, justice

v/vc’s I will probs be upset about: util. confusing util with societal welfare, consequentIalism,

1. Tech>Truth

2. You should be confident in what you’re arguing and present it as such. Even if you don’t personally believe in it, adequate speaking skills (i.e. not too fast, monotone, etc.) are necessary and speaks (if possible) reward that. However, I will never GIVE a debater the round just for these skills, hence why I lean tech. If anything, when the ballot is extremely close in a lay round, but there is a difference in presentation, it can affect my decision though not substantially, so treat the round as if it matters because it still does.

3. As a previous LD competitor I do a decent amount of topic research so I’m not entirely in the dark coming into your round. That is not an excuse to treat me as if you don’t need to explain your arguments.

4. I LOVE CX. If your CX is boring or circular I’m def going to dock speaks if you’re purposely trying to go nowhere (unless its tactical, in which case you'll probs get 30 speaks). Good CX should engage with the most important arguments or inconsistencies in your opp’s case/linking. Always make sure you’re having fun and be respectful, it’s always awkward when it gets heated.

5. PLEASE always engage in direct clash!!! Parallelism with no intersection is annoying and neither me nor your opp are going to be happy. If they call you out that’s even worse.

6. If your argumentation is circular your opp should point it out (if not then I’m not making the arg for them) but it won't help you by any means. I’d rather you end the speech early because I’m not going to listen to the same thing 20 times in a speech… I’ll just put my pen down.

7. Speaking of not making arguments for people, however painful it is to not see analysis, I will never do it for you in round. If you believe I’m doing any of this in my rfd post round please ask me about it!!! (I always go off the flow so this is not going to happen often if at all, but still free free to ask me in case)

8. Clipping or misrepresenting cards is going to be an L but I expect the opp to explain it in the round instead of only challenging after. Be a good person (i.e. no racism, etc.), it’ll only end bad for you and result in an L.

Circuit LD:

Quick Prefs (off familiarity & minimal experience):

LARP - 1

T - 1

Ks - 1/2

Phil - 2

Non-T Theory - 3

High Theory Ks - 3

Tricks - 4/5*

(Just prefs on what I'd be happiest to judge but I'll obv still judge whatever round you want to have.)

*TRICKS - I have a higher threshold if these are well warranted/substantive

I view debate both in more than just an argumentative way: it's all strategic. Any speed is fine with me tbh but don't go too fast at the expense of clarity. I will say clear or slow as needed and I think debaters can and should do the same. I don't usually flow off the doc. I also vote off any arg that's not exclusionary (i.e. race, gender, etc.) but it has to be on my flow and has to be understandable. Prioritize explaining your arguments over how many arguments you think you can list (number/quantity). Time yourself, give clear judge instruction (your burden is writing the ballot), and don't be offensive. Args must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. I won't vote on conceded claims and won't vote on "vote for me because I am x identity" args either.

Defaults

I will not automatically default, but if I am forced to then the following will be my defaults:

Tech>Truth

Fairness and Education are voters

Fairness > Education

Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB

Skep is true (i.e. just read a fw)

DTD, No RVIs, Competing Interps

Truth Testing!!

Permissibility negates

Judge instruction>>>>>

Clipping = lowest speaks possible & an immediate L

LARP:

I probably have the most experience with judging these types of debates but always make sure you weigh regardless. Imo weighing is what the round comes down to so make sure you do it!!

1. I'm so tired of hearing ab weak link chains in round w/no warranting as to WHY they’re weak. I get that it’s obvious but it's so hard to pref your weighing when you explain nothing.

2. I’m on the fence about util so you always have to justify… esp against calc indicts. My thoughts about trad apply here.

T:

I LOVE a good T debate. I get theory applic here so don't worry about other prefs. Please do evidence comp & weigh, it's absolutely necessary and you'll flak for it post round. Also, try to have some good justifications for semantics. You'll def need a warrant for dtd and not a reason to reject semantics btw.

K:

Definitely not the most experienced in terms of running and engaging in K debates w/my prefs at tourneys but I’ve read enough of the literature to evaluate a fair amount of them. K Affs are always fun to hear so go for it.

My mind slips sometimes so always explain your discursive impact & ROB fairly clearly. If you think your arg is confusing, overexplain rather than just OV’ing– I tend to be better w/judging postmodern as opposed to Identity Ks, hence my TL;DR.

Familiar w/or have read: Gen Cap, Semiocap, Setcol, Dean, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Geopol, Nietzsche, Anarchism, Security, Militarism

Not as familiar w/but know lit on: Afropess, Queerpess, Disabilitypess, Orientalism, Bataille, Fem, Lacan, Berlant, etc.

Phil:

I have a decent understanding of phil but nothing too in depth. In a sense it’s def not my forte but when well explained I think evaluation isn’t particularly difficult. I don’t have fun with any blippy phil rounds that border closer to tricks debate so stay out of that territory if possible. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. If you don’t take adv of nonsensical contention args you’ll probably hear it in my rfd.

I’ve read Hobbes, Virtue Ethics, Hegel, Kant, ILaw, and diff types of Skep the most, but I’ll likely be able to understand most other fw’s as well. If something you want to run isn't listed on here, just surprise me.

Tricks:

There is not much here because there shouldn't be. I am not a tricks debater and I don’t think I ever will be. I’ve still run tricks before (indexicals, ext-world skep, contingent standards, etc.), but don’t main them so those are some of my favs. That being said, I still think tricks can be valid if they’re substantive and create good clash:

• Substantive tricks > theory spamming and ANYTHING FRIV

• In-depth weighing on how your trick is warranted and the logic behind it/how it interacts with the rest of the flow is a must.

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

Hi my name is Daniel Lee.

I have been a debater for 9 years, though its been a while since I've stopped after entering college. I debated for Honor Academy and Sunny Hills High School for most of my Junior High and high Highschool Career. Debated both public forum and Lincoln Douglas, but have significantly more experience in LD. Have debated in a lot of local Southern California tournaments (IVC, Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach, Berkeley), State Qualifiers, and States. I have debated in circuit tournaments and non-circuit.

I consider myself a flow judge.

Types of arg: I am fine with most types of arguments as long as they aren't disrespectful. Wacky arguments are cool. Plus speaker points if you make me laugh.

Speed: I will try my best to keep up, but if you are spreading at the speed of light please send me doc in advance. If I can't understand it will not be put on the flow. Will stare at you through the camera if I can't understand.

Email: dlee30061207@gmail.com I would love to be added to the email chain.

CP: perfectly fine with this, but do explain the significance and respond to perms or non-unique arguments.

K: I have not ran a K, but have debated against K's. I am ok with you running K's. Please explain how it relates and its significance, or I can't vote on it.

T: Fine with T's.

Impact calc + Value: Sometimes just doing this can give you insta-win. Make sure to extend impacts and scenarios.

Be respectful to your opponent. There is a difference between being rude and aggressive.

Overall, I am experienced but not the greatest debater to set foot on the planet. Will do my best to judge your round.

Clarity is of utmost importance; this not only means that you shouldn't go too fast, but also that you should clearly articulate a few points rather than cram in as many as possible. Be clear and warrant thoroughly. I flow by hand. Please don't make crossfire a joke; it's the part of the round that shows me who can think quickly on their feet and defend their case well in the moment. Teams that expose dumb arguments but technically lose the flow > teams that win the flow but get exposed for making dumb arguments. Good teams will collapse and consolidate on the one or two most important parts of the debate, rather than extending everything throughout the round.

Quick notes:

• probably don't run progressive argumentation in front of me
• paraphrasing is great, as long as you're not misrepresenting the card; good rhetoric will always help your chances of winning
• Always err on the side of quality rather than quantity
• weighing doesn't mean just throwing in random words like "pre-req" and "magnitude"; it means showing the judge why your impacts are bigger than the other team's. Good mitigation defense that makes their argument look really small can still be a really effective way to do this.
• Crossfire can win you rounds
• Don't do the dumb thing where you highlight every other word from every other line on the card
• Also don't say "they drop this" when they actually did respond to it.

I'll give you my email for the evidence exchange chain in the round if needed, but I won't look at cards unless a team is potentially misconstruing evidence. Past the point where a team is misconstruing evidence, it makes for the best debate if debaters argue the warrants rather than whether the New York Times or Wall Street Journal is better.

TLDR: Everything is true until someone says it isn't, in which case we have a debate.

This means that if both teams agree to the same assumptions, like nuclear war is good, then I'll vote for the team most likely to cause a nuclear war.

The ONLY exception to this is when the round gets personal (e.g., repeated misgendering, personal character attacks, use of slurs against opponents, etc. While I am okay with any argument to get the ballot, I believe those arguments must stay independent of a debater's identity, out-of-round conduct, or clothing/lifestyle choices to maintain academic & community integrity.

Thoughts on the UNSC Topic:

I briefly did research on the UN Standing Army topic, but have no knowledge of this topic besides that China, Russia, France, the USA, and Britain are the Perm 5 and that the affirmative would like to abolish their permanent membership (alongside all the powers it holds). Everything else is pretty much malleable in my eyes. I'm broadly skeptical of the effectiveness of the UN, but this belief is one of my politically weakest.

Thoughts on the Rehab Topic:

I have never done any research on this topic, so any definitional debates & personal beliefs shouldn't have a big impact on my ballot. If you tell a good story with your evidence, I'll vote for you. Simple as that.

How to win my ballot:

Win the weighing debate. It's that simple. If you win this debate, I will use it as the ballot-deciding mechanism. As long as you're winning some offense under your case (and the other side hasn't accessed your mechanism) you will get the ballot.

Extension of that note above: Even if statements are an excellent way to pull the ballot in your direction due to you taking into account more factors of the round. This can be anything from the evidence your opponent's emphasize to entire framing contentions if you think you're winning under that frame or whole cases. It's win or go home right now. So be strategic. Be bold.

Please PLEASE collapse, slow down, simplify, and weigh the main arguments of why you win in the back half of the round. Keep yourself to 1-3 voting issues and start weighing them in your rebuttal/summary. The summary and final focus make or break almost all debates, so you should prioritize developing a low number of high-quality arguments rather than a high number of low-quality arguments. This is not to dissuade you from going for multiple flows if it's a good way to overwhelm your opponents, but a spread-out debate makes it a bit harder to resolve.

Make evidence comparisons and strengthening, is crucial for resolving nearly all debates. If your Smith 19 card is an empirical meta-study of the topic over a long period with various factors and concludes your way, I will be inclined to vote on it. If your Smith 19 card is filled with political buzzwords and lacks warrants, I won't be inclined to vote. The point is, KNOW your cards well, defend them well in cross-ex, discredit your opponent's cards, and hammer that in every speech.

Be clear in your final speech, re-explain the link chain into the impact(s) you collapsed on, re-explain why you have established sufficient defense on your opponent's arguments, and re-explain why the affirmative world is something I should endorse/reject. Your first 20 or so seconds of FF should be the words I paraphrase in the RFD.

Side note: I will not read evidence unless EXPLICITLY given a reason to do so in your final speech, ethics challenges, or the two teams disagree about the representation of the card. You tell me what the card says, the year, the data, the methodology, etc. It is my firm belief that spin outweighs quality. Spin is debating; evidence quality is research. In other words, if you tag a card with "A 40-year study proves that the aff fails because of government corruption," but the article is about cranberry farming, I will assume that the 40-year study is real. Of course, if the aff points out that the card does not mention a study, that is sufficient refutation. That does mean I will require you to produce any evidence, with a presently working link & cut text, to your opponent at their request at the bare minimum. If the link isn't working or I don't know which part of the card you're reading from, don't introduce the evidence.

Side note #2: Economic decline, global warming, democratic backsliding, reduced government spending, and state instability are not impacts alone. (unless there's nothing else in the round I can evaluate/your opponent's agree it's bad) You need to explain why I should factor those impacts into my ballot because vast bodies of literature argue why all of those impacts are good. The only thing I assume at the very start is that suffering is bad and to be avoided. I only do this because that's what most policies are constructed around: the idea that we should do x to alleviate suffering or injustice in y category. Consistent with the start of my paradigm, you are still free to make arguments as to why suffering in y category is good/attempting to alleviate suffering through state focus is terrible/the aff decimates the value of life through securitization/whatever other critical literature you have, I'm always down to hear a new, bold theory I haven't read about yet. (Please don't do this without extensive pre-round prep into theories of pessimism/death drive/identity politics. Otherwise, you'll be offensive without achieving any strategic advantage)

Style: (1 is most comfortable evaluating, five is least)

Traditional PF-1 (like flay cheese but without the heartstring-tugging; I'm tech)

Humor/Punchlines/Quotes at the start of your speech (ya I'm probably tired cuz debate is exhausting, make me laugh & you'll see speaks go up. Also, even though it adds no strategic value, reading a broad thesis at the top of your speech is something I always did to paint a picture in my judge's mind. Doing so in a constructive will resonate well with my inner novice.)

Flow PF-2 (please give a flay-ish final focus, though; be efficient but precise, and plz don't spend that much time on extinction stuff unless you're winning some link)

Low-level Performance/Kritiks-2 (cap, security, debate space, and personal identity stuff. A good example would be TOC 21 debates from Dougherty Valley RP, Dalton YS, & Brooklyn Technical CQ. However, I have no experience running non-topical cases & believe being T is good for skills & clash reasons. So...run these arguments at your own risk. I will say, though, that I think high-level non-T debates are 99% of the time more interesting than high-level policy clashes...do whatever you wish with that information.)

Low-level Theory & Topicality-2/3 (I feel like many PF debaters get away with murder by doing highly questionable practices, such as paraphrasing and not cutting fully highlighted cards. However, I believe these arguments are much easier to win than defending your side of the topic, as you can spew out the same arguments every single debate at any tournament every year. As a result, my bar for voting on these is very high, and I'd prefer that you leave all your interpretations at drop the card/argument rather than drop the debater.)

Spreading-5 (I'm not following along with your speech doc or reading evidence; if you'll be fast, be clear and give me some pen time. I'll yell clear two times, but after that, if you still can't slow down, I'll visibly stop flowing)

Finally, I will likely show expression during the round (i.e., scrunching my face when confused, nodding when I agree, widening my eyes when surprised, etc.) Take these as heavy cues as to whether I'm vibing with your speech.

Student judge with PF/Spar background.

1. Tech over truth, but treat me like a lay, which means explain all arguments well!

2. Please keep track of your own time. I'll stop flowing if someone goes over, but I won't interrupt; it's your responsibility to let them know (respectfully).

3. Give clear roadmaps before speeches and signpost during.

4. I'm not flowing cross, but be respectful. I like confidence, not arrogance.

5. Extra speaks if you make clever jokes, funny analogies, or references to memes (at appropriate times, ofc).

6. Actually weigh, and give solid voters.

7. If you're going to spread, send me your case beforehand.

Add me to email chains: anniebugs2.0@gmail.com

Have fun!

I debated parli in HS for DVHS and was mostly a caseish debater but i enjoy a well-run and explained flow debate

I would prefer if you didn't spread

If you want to run k or t, explain thoroughly what it is and what it means

I weigh on the weighing mechanism unless told otherwise

I will only protect the flow in JV/Novice, I expect open to be able to catch new args in 3rd and POO

I also really like terminalized impx

hey hey! my name is Lauren (any pronouns), a senior parli debater @ Crystal and assistant debate coach for our middle school debate program. i aspire to have a shorter paradigm. I'm a strong believer of giving feedback (if not flat-out disclosing) after every round, so please don't disappear the moment round ends!

tl;dr: Do good clash, weigh, and most importantly---have fun! :D

CHSSA MS state championships Specific

- they coded your school name for a reason! please don't tell me what school you're from---i want to be as least biased as possible

- don't run techy stuff in novice if people aren't down for it.

In general:

-i try to come into rounds as a "blank slate." run whatever argument you want, frame everything however you want. (Tech>truth)

- if nobody tells me how to evaluate, i will default to: framework >> impacts >> links >> uniqueness. tell me where to put your t-shell and Ks.

- i need a claim, warrant, and an implication to vote on an argument.

- WEIGH!! weigh, weigh weigh. do a world-to-world comparison; compare impacts on scope, magnitude, timeframe, funding; tell me which arguments are the most important to vote on in the round.

- impacts must be terminalized for me to vote on them. saying "economy goes down" is not enough.

- i don't extend your arguments for you. if you want them to flow through, extend them.

- signpost!! it makes evaluating the round much easier. tell me which argument you're responding to or reading (Second link, subpoint three of UQ, etc.)

- i vote on the flow but if y'all are treating your opponents awfully i will drop speaks and report you.

Timing:

- for parli---DO NOT STEAL PREP TIME. There is no grace period in parli. I will start your time after 10-15 seconds after the last speech has ended.

- i do permit and actually prefer a *short* off-time roadmap.

- i do not flow any arguments the moment your time is up.

- i try to protect the flow but regardless you should CALL THE POO. it will never hurt your speaks and it really helps me in evaluating new PMR and LOR argumentation.

Speed:

So I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that debate has trained me to understand everything on 2x speed, which means I can understand y'all if you choose to spread. The bad news is I write/type slowly.

If you are going to be speaking fast, please help me out by signposting a lot (especially the 2AC and 2NC) so I don't miss a round-winning argument!

Theory:

- theory is fun and chill. friv t is ok.

- please tell me whether to drop debater/argument or else i don't know what to do the theory shell.

- no default on competing interps or just line-by-line responses. tell me what you'd want your opponents to do.

Kritiks:

- ks were built improve accessibility. don't make your k inaccessible to your opponents.

- assume i'm not familiar with your lit base.

- disclose if you're doing an aff k.

Speaks:

- speaks are kinda biased. i'll give everyone a 29 as long as y'all aren't being abusive. if you want 30 speaks, run a creative cp, non-stock AD or DA, or make me laugh :D

If you guys have any questions at all or something is not addressed in my paradigm, email me at lliu24@crystal.org or find me in between rounds!

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Hello! My name is Vera and I am a high school student. You may run whatever you like. I will vote based on what you tell me to. Please be nice to your opponents and any rude language will not be tolerated.

Speaker Points:

• To get high speaker points, speak clearly and get your point across.
• I prefer for you not to spread.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

• As a judge I prioritize clear communication, effective persuasion, and logical argumentation.

• I evaluate the performances based on well researched arguments, evidence based, keep it clear and simple, and logical.

• Speak clearly and concisely, if you are reading too fast, I will not understand your argument.

• I will give you verbal communication if there are any technical issues during online tournament for example: Audio and video issues, if you are not audible to me.

• I am a good listener and taking notes through out the round.

• Looking for respectful behavior towards opponents.

• I will base my decision on the strengths and validation of your arguments you presented.

• I believe in time management.

• Have fun, to learn something new is exciting, learning is a never ending process.

Srushti Manjunatha:

Debate (LD):

As a debater myself, I know the rules of Lincoln-Douglas debate. During your debate, I will be flowing the round. However, my decision won't be entirely off the flow. Things I will take into account are: argumentation, evidence (ex: cards/examples/logic), and delivery.

Argumentation: I am a flow judge! However, if an argument is proven true, I will most likely vote for that side. I believe having a clear argument is the best way to win the round. This also goes with how you argue/refute with your opponents. Clear cut refutations using hypothetical situation/common sense can help you devalue an opponents argument. (Tip: A good use of CX time will make your arguments flow better later in the round).

Things I believe you should avoid:

1. Saying that your opponent doesn't have evidence multiple times during your speeches.

2. Just saying that your opponent dropped a point but then you never explain why that is so significant.

Both of these things do not showcase any clear argument.

Evidence: Although I most probably won't card check any of the evidence you are using, if I hear an outlandish statistic, I will definitely keep that in mind when making my decision. (Tip: During the round explain why your evidence is so important/impactful as it is a great way of persuasion!)

Delivery: Try to be as confident as you can! Delivery is a very controversial topic. Some people believe that delivery should not matter in debate and some people believe delivery is a significant part. I believe that delivery plays a small role in my decisions. Nevertheless, delivery is not a key factor or a major reason for why I voted for one side over the other. My suggestion is to make an effort with your delivery as it might be the final decision-maker between you and your opponent. When it comes to speed, please speak at a reasonable speed. Fast talkers usually make your opponents confused and harder to refute you case, keep in mind that it will confuse your judges as well. To make sure that I am understanding all of your arguments please speak at a reasonable pace.

Good luck debaters!

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized cards or speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Good luck, all!

Hello!

I'm a sophomore high school debater and I've been doing lay LD debate for almost two years now and no other events.

For LD (and other debates), I'm a traditional judge, not a circuit judge.

he/him/his

In general:

Don't be mean.

Don't do things that shouldn't be done in speech and debate.

If I ever seem confused, that might be because I am.

For LD debate:

I flow, so keep that in mind.

Speaking of flowing, I'm a lay debater, so please don't spread because I can't flow spreading (I like to vote for the side I understand).

Treat me like a traditional judge, not a circuit judge (I have no idea how theory and kritiks work)

Also, please give off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

I also enjoy framework debates, just something to keep in mind in round.

- For example, I will vote off a vc of mitigating structural violence if it is well-argued (by using logical arguments while explaining why the other vc is worse) even if the opponent wins off util

Please give voter issues, it makes judging a lot easier.

Please weigh your arguments/voters, that way I don't have to make arguments for you. If one debater weighs and the other doesn't, there is a really good chance I vote for the one that weighs.

I'm slightly truth over tech, but depends on the arguments and if you convince me into understanding it.

I don't really know what else to say, I might have forgotten some things to mention, so make of it what you will.

Other debate:

I don't really know anything else other than LD, so just treat me as if I were a beginner/flow-y parent judge.

Speech:

I don't really know anything about speech, so just treat me like a new parent judge.

Lynbrook 26

Basically read whatever argument you want, I'll probably understand it, but I won't vote on the following arguments:

- Friv Theory

- Tricks

- Non topical K's

- Disclosure

Please Weigh, explain to me why you won the debate and what the most important issue is.

Spread, don't spread I don't really care.

I am currently a criminal defense attorney. In the past, I debated at the University of West George where I was a three time qualifier for the National Debate Tournament.

--

Read the arguments that you enjoy reading. Be it the politics disads, framework, topicality, or any Kriitk arguments. I'm not a fan of theory, but if its all you got in a debate then go for it. However, keep in mind that my background is in critical argumentation, so if you read policy style arguments just make sure that you are explaining it well and are coherent. Especially, make sure that you are explaining all of the internal links to your disads clearly.

Please do not sound like a robot when you debate in front of me. Look me in the eyes and communicate your arguments to me clearly. Also keep in mind that I am not a flow-centric judge and have an unorthodox way of taking notes for debate. That being said, You aren't going to win the debate on some small argument on the line by line. I look at the debate more holistically.

Hi! I'm a high school debater at Mountain View High. I've competed in LD, Parli, Spar, and Impromptu at tournaments and have general knowledge about most events.

I consider myself a flay judge and value good link chains and fleshed out impacts.

Hi! I'm Chloe, high schooler at Monte Vista (CA).

I've judged LD, PF, Congress, HI, Extemp and Prep Speech. I am familiar with most events and I main in prep speech but also love to debate. Feel free to ask me questions before and after the round!

For Speech:

• Delivery: very important to me, present to your audience at all times and be expressive!
• Content: I like speeches that are organized and clear. The topic should be something you are passionate about! If you are, the audience will share your enthusiasm.

For Congress/Debate:

• I'm looking for strong contentions back with good evidence and analysis.
• A big deciding factor for my rounds tends to be reasoning/analysis.
• Extend your points through out the round! Try not to drop arguments.
• Clash!! I am always looking for good refs and clash, this brings your case to the next level and will really help you when I am marking my ballot.
• Utilize CX as best you can but don't ask questions unless they help your case! (don't just stand there and ask pointless questions to fill the time, its okay if you don't have that many!)
• Have good delivery (Congress)! This is really important, especially during rhetoric.
• Be as organized as possible, this helps your audience keep track of the debate.
• Don't forget to weigh the round (debate)!
• Clarity > speed
• BE RESPECTFUL TO EVERYONE

DM me @_chloeneo if you have questions about ballots post round.

Relax and have fun! You should enjoy yourself :)

I will be flowing, but I don't flow cross. If you want me to flow something that happened in crossfire, refer to it in your next speech.

DO NOT BRING ANY NEW INFORMATION OR RESPONSES AFTER SUMMARY. ALWAYS make sure to extend any arguments you want me to keep before then. Clashing evidence means I decide based on warrants and impacts.

If you are going to weigh, make sure to weigh on claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when needed).

Tech>truth, however, do NOT misconstrued evidence because that's lame.

Speed is fine, but you better be understandable!

My email is nguyenkylie598@gmail.com for any cards.

Hi! I'm Vivian, a freshman at Monte Vista High School. I have experience participating in tournaments during high school and middle school for Lincoln Douglas Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking.

FOR CONGRESS/DEBATE:

• Please be respectful to all opponents, regardless of what your opinions are about their points/arguments. This is the most important rule I refer to when making my decision.

• Each argument made should be backed up with critical analysis and sufficient evidence. Points without these will not be noted in my ballots.

• Clash with others! It is important to analyze everyone's points to extend your arguments and refute others. I love to see clash embedded into your speech or brought up in CX. Of course, always be kind and respectful with others when doing so.

• Have effective delivery-this could be speaking loudly and clearly with sufficient eye contact or using hand gestures when needed. Good delivery is essential to a successful congress speech. (Congress only)

• Present your arguments in an organized way. It makes it easier for opponents and judges to follow your speech.

FOR PREPARED SPEECH & INTERPRETATION

• Showing interest and passion in your topic will really help with engaging the audience and judge. Ultimately, the one who should be most interested is you! Try and make your audience have that same enthusiasm.

• Effective delivery is critical to a speech, I enjoy speeches that are clear and organized with engaging eye contact from the speaker. For interpretation, being expressive will really help convey your message.

• (Specific to Prepared Speech) Present your speech in an organized way-this makes it easier for me to follow your points and understand the topic you are presenting. Also, try to make time, the speech should be 8-10 minutes long.

• (Specific to Interpretation) Present your speech in a way that allows me to follow and understand the story line. This way, I can see the clear message and impact of your piece.

Overall, have fun and good luck!

Hello! I'm Aidan, a current speech and debater for Bellarmine College Prep (class of '26!)-- I'm happy to be your judge (:

Add me to the email chain: aidan.okyar@gmail.com

You can email me there or at aidan.okyar26@bcp.org if you have any questions about decisions.

I've done S&D for ~5 years: I did LD in MS but now do Policy and Extemp in HS.

Generally, in round, please be respectful, clear, and overall just enjoy your experience!

Now, onto more specifics:

Debate:

Generally, be a good speaker-- be clear, etc. I will time you and will stop flowing when time ends. In any sort of cross-examination, crossfire, POI, etc-- don't be a jerk!

Speaks: Be a good debater AND speaker-- make good arguments AND have good delivery-- one or the other is okay, but most times, only debaters who do both excellently will get high speaks from me. CX matters here too!

Follow general etiquette please. Any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = lowest possible speaks+L. As tabroom reminds me right above where I write this paradigm, "in other words, be mature, and good people."

General tips:

• I take CX seriously and into account! Use them to undermine your opponents' arguments!
• Be clear and clash with arguments
• Frame and impact out the round

Policy:

I love the realism of stock issue debate and how we really are debating over a policy as if it was going to be passed. Some notes:

1. delivery matters! don't just stare at your paper/computer and speak to it-- look at me (i won't bite, i swear)! be clear and persuade me-- that's the point of the debate in my opinion.
2. Give me burdens for stock issues/how each team can win the round/what the aff/neg burden is, etc.
3. be concrete-- don't get bogged down in hypotheticals or vague exchanges-- cite evidence and be direct
4. CLASH!! so often, as my amazing coaches always say, debates are like "two ships passing in the night" (don't make them like that)
5. PLEASE EXTEND WARRANTS AND IMPACTS-- it's not enough to just say that "x argument is dropped" or "x argument is true" but you need to tell me why and what that means for the round.
6. do some impact calculus. Why should I prioritize your impacts over your opponents? What does the plan causing some economic damage mean? Contextualize and compare.
7. Use CX to undermine your opponent's arguments-- you should be setting up your questions in cx and try to have a strategy of what you want to get out of it. Don't just scattershot a bunch of random questions and hope they trip up.
8. collapse in your 2nr/2ar: the negative strategy should be ironed out by this point in the debate, and only the core arguments should be extended-- on the other hand, the affirmative should be able to extend a coherent story which tells me exactly why a policy is needed, how it will work, and its effects.
9. have fun! too often we get stuck in the "extracurricular" or "college activity" aspect of debate-- have fun debating about the topic.

Speech:

Extemp:
I do extemp right now at the HS level, and I'm versed with the event's workings. Will be timing & will give you time signals from 5 down if I can-- please time yourself in case I ever fly off the rails. I care about both delivery and content, but generally, if you can hook me into your speech do it however you want-- be funny or serious-- whatever you can do for your speech. Some asks: have full cites with publication and specific date, have a clear answer to your question (e.g: if it's a "how...?" question-- outline what you would do, etc) and be CLEAR with your analysis-- make it unique and specific. Make sure you summarize your speech quickly but well in your conclusion.

Impromptu:
I love listening to good impromptus! Some tips: I will be skeptical on your "personal stories" because I can't validate those, a good intro related to the topic is always good, please make sure to relate your subpoints to your topic after every point. Be funny, be serious, do whatever you need to do-- I'm just here to listen, and I'm open to anything.

I know speech and debate can be difficult-- you got this! Just remember what I've said for your event(s) and have fun above everything else :D

Good luck!!

Hello

I am a parent judge

Do:

Speak Slow

Be clear

Be respectful

Be nice

Be logical

Not read probability weighing

Do Not:

Speak fast

Be unclear

Be rude

Be mean

Call for lot of evidence

Make me do work

not read probability weighing

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZjveCWVbFkM3O8LSmdEGHOm02QfZtoeeyX9OzW0QryM/edit?usp=sharing

about me:

hi, i'm ethan (any pronouns), a junior parli debater with mvla. i've had 16 different partners so you might've seen me on the circuit with: yuika sun, caleb lin, sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by each of those partners who come from all kinds of debate backgrounds. all of that just means i'm down for whatever type of debate you wanna do.

tl;dr:

tech > truth. this is your debate, run whatever you want. signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing. don't worry about me rejecting any arguments. as long as you're warranting and implicating your arguments i can evaluate anything. i don't intervene (except maybe on accident oops). if i think an argument is problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach.

general:

• all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
• extend your args through every speech. shadow extensions make my job hard
• extend terminal defense/resolve offense if you're trying to kick out of something
• collapse. collapse. collapse
• weigh
• comfortable with ~300wpm w/o docs. dont spread out your opponents
• tag teaming is fine (but i only flow speaker)
• grace time is fake i stop flowing after time.

policy debate:

• trichot is fake. debate the topic however u want, just be ready to win the fw/theory debate
• i tend to look at uq frames the link a lot. think carefully about your uniqueness
• terminalize your impacts pls! just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
• spec-affs and cps are cool if done strategically
• fine with condo but also receptive to condo bad
• fine with pics but also receptive to pics bad
• biased against cheaty cps (e.g. consult) but will vote on them
• perm is not an advocacy, it's a test of competition
• default to no judge kick, but can if told to
• give me texts & read solvency

lay vs. tech

this is just a rant, skip it if you want. there is no real delineation between "lay" and "tech." everything in debate is just an argument. i don't see why debating solely the topic and solely in a "lay" way is uniquely educational, especially when all the evidence in parli is garbage and the topics are recycled from tournament to tournament. so i (as a debater not a judge) don't really like trad rounds. if parli was a space solely for learning about current events and policymaking, i would hate this space since it spreads misinformation more than anything else. i think parli should be a space to learn how to think critically and construct arguments critically. i like friv theory because it's fun to run and gets people thinking critically. i like ks for the same reason. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible with their language and POIs.

theory:

• i went for theory a lot. i can hang. just be accessible
• default to competing interps
• no default for drop the arg vs. debater. without an implication i can't eval the shell
• reasonability is tough to win without a brightline
• unpopular opinion: the rvi is underrated. just make it better than timeskew

kritiks:

• don't make the k inaccessible
• familiar with queer theory, basic cap, and a smidge of lacan
• know some pomo (mostly baudy and a little dng)
• do layering work. "prefiat > postfiat" isn't enough
• disclose non t k-affs (ROTB + Alt is nice)
• willing to vote on disclosure
• tfw is strong, just be able to answer the prep-outs
• extinction outweighs is strong, just win fw

funky tech:

• explain the implications to phil if you're reading it
• down for tricks, just read warrants
• down to hear judge performance but tell me how to eval it
• willing to vote on presumption triggers if warranted. don't create contradictions
• my fav fruits are peaches

misc:

• i flow poi answers and these are binding
• call the poo. incorrect poo articulations will not be punished
• 2ar and 2nr get new weighing but earlier weighing beats it
• 2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
• i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
• imo the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. i'd suggest flipping aff in front of me
• i give speaks based on strategy. i might buy 30 speaks theory

everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.

final note:

this paradigm is long. i know. i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate 'novices'. if you don't understand half the stuff in this paradigm, that's fine! ask questions if you have them or just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!

I debated LD for a year, PF for two years, and Policy for a year.

Go slow and explain your arguements, make sure to clearly explain your real world impacts and weigh.

Don't be rude, especially during cx.

For PF - PLEASE keep grand cross somewhat organized

dont spread :)

Raj Pattabi

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

What and how I judge are as follows

• Assess the strength of arguments that includes the clarity of the thesis, quality of evidence, and logical coherence
• How well debaters respond to counterarguments and whether they maintain a logical and consistent position
• Consider the persuasiveness of debaters, presentation style, research and evidence
• Assess the debaters’ cross-examination skills, overall delivery and style

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

add me to email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

you don't have to ask if i'm ready before each speech, just assume I am

PF:

weigh

nothing new after summary

progressive args and spreading ok but don’t run disclosure. I do not care about disclosing at novice tournaments.

(if ur novice ask ur opponents before spreading on them, debate should be inclusive especially at the novice level)

extend all arguments, framework and defense that u want me to vote on - and explain why your arguments matter more (weigh)

(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....

Affirmative :

1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.

4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.

NEGATIVE :

1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .

2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !

3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

Lay:

Don't call me judge

Frame well and respond to warrants in lbl (CLASH) and you'll get good speaks

Circuit:

My views are aligned with Rafael Pierry

I'm a trad debater, so I'd appreciate if you don't spread too much

I am a parent judge. I am engineer by training and profession. This is my first year judging but I am an avid follower of debates. I do my research on topics and as a human I do form views, but I will NOT use it to judge the debaters.

My Focus:

• Be respectful and have a healthy debate.
• Have a clear flow to arguments, present evidence and be concise.
• Clarity and ability to understand arguments without being the loudest voice.
• Special focus on crossfire and rebuttals.

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (mainly middle school and novice).

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread, especially if we are online.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but online people are just starting to take prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up and says that only frontlining in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Pls put me on the email chain - imad.shaikh037@gmail.com

I currently do LD at Clements High School but have done PF

I am a tech/flow judge, but Im fine w wtv but ill prefer it not to be boring.

General Stuff:

1] Tech>Truth -> As a judge, im not going to create any scenario where i will showcase judge intervention. A solid claim, warrant, and impact will automatically be eval true unless refuted.

2] Even with docs, I will be flowing. If you are unclear and I miss an argument, it will be ur fault. But im overall fine w wtv speed u want

LD :

You can read wtv u want but for my specific knowledge/judging capability:

Policy - 1

Trad - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 1

K - 2

Trix - 4

Debates a game, so read wtv it takes to win the game.

Speaks:

I'm a speaks fairy, but pls try to be coherent/clear as it'll make it sm easier to evaluate the round. Spreading is chill. If you are abusive, racist, sexist, etc. I will give auto L25

I am a parent judge with minimal judging experience. Please do not speak too fast/spread, and refrain from using excessive debate jargon. I value confident speakers who can effectively refute their opponent's arguments and defend their own using clear evidence and reasoning links. Please remain respectful during rounds and follow proper debate etiquette. I look forward to judging your round.

Current Public forum/World Schools debater:

1. Extend in summary!!!

2. Defense is not sticky

3. Frontline in second rebuttal and summary

4. Please weigh - preferably in rebuttal, but at the latest during summary

P.S:

If you debate the entire round without technology, you'll receive auto 30s

for everything else, please refer to rahil pasha's paradigm

some general notes about debate:

I evaluate tech>truth but I likely won't vote on an argument that I don't understand/ isn't reasoned well so always make sure to warrant properly and extend warrants before extending impacts.

Feel free to read anything you want as long as you can explain it well and implicate arguments!

CROSS

Don't be rude to your opponents!! (This means letting other people speak, not consistently interrupting others, and not dominating cross)

Cross is for setting up potential arguments/responses/indicts so make sure to keep it engaging with relevant points of clash

I don't flow cross so make sure to bring up anything that happened during cross in your speeches so I can evaluate it.

WEIGHING

I dislike probability weighing that goes "we have 100% probability because it's happening right now". If you're going to run probability weighing also weigh the probability of both solvencies.

No weighing means I default on strength of link and magnitude.

SPEAKER POINTS

Typically I'll try to average 28 for speaks but extra props to you if anyone runs 30 speaks theory.

Being rude or disrespectful will tank your speaks-- please be nice to each other

THEORY

I evaluate theory before substance (but feel free to argue otherwise in round). For PF: I don't feel like theory needs to be in the straight ABCD format, just implicate anything you want me to drop the debater on as an IVI if you want to save time.

I'm unfamiliar with evaluating things like Tricks, Phil, Ks beyond Sec K and Cap K: still run them if you want to but make sure to warrant and explain them very very very well.

EVIDENCE

paraphrased evidence is bad. powertagged cards are abusive. I love evidence indicts and will probably drop the evidence if there's a reasonable indict on it.

If you want to send evidence to each other, please do it quickly so we can avoid tournament delays

SPEED

Speed is generally fine under 300 wpm if you're clear. That being said, go fast at your own risk-- I won't evaluate any argument that I can't understand.

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.

I am a parent judge and have judged debate events for a year. I have recently started to judge speech events too.

Speech: Effectively communicate your position. Keep to the topic and please do not spread since the it is hard to follow. The use of evidence and logic to support your contentions is important. Please track your time as my attention is on the content.

Debate: I prefer debaters to present their arguments clearly and explain how it is superior. You should not jump from one point to another and then come back. Support the argument with support data and have the source and full citation available, if requested. I consider both the probability and the magnitude of the arguments.

In the end the person that effectively supports their initial position and also offers competent arguments against the opponents arguments will likely win.

Hi everyone! I am a collegiate judge who has 4+ years of experience in the forensics community at the high school level. I have extensive experience debating and judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglass, but I am also familiar with many other debate formats like Parli, Policy, etc.

I consider myself to be a “tabula rasa” judge, meaning I walk into the round a clean slate as if I have no prior knowledge on the topic you debate.

Here are some of my more specific preferences:

Please signpost frequently and make it clear what argument you’re addressing, that way I can flow it more smoothly.

Additionally, make it clear when you are cross-applying or dropping an argument so I can make note of it.

I am okay with speed, but if you talk so fast without clear enunciation that I can’t properly understand you, you run the risk of me missing your arguments which could hurt your case. Same goes for theory, Ks, etc.---if you swamp me with overly-technical language, it could serve against you.

I place a huge emphasis on voter issues and impact weighing. Tell me what I should be voting on---this is how I should be making my final decision.

And ultimately please be respectful of your opponent :)

I've done PF for 3 years (slow), and I've done Policy (slow) for a year so far.

i will flow - put me on the email chain/doc - rohansontakke09@gmail.com

make sure you are actually clashing

dropping arguments doesn't lose you the debate imo, just make sure you weigh at the end on why the arguments you won outweigh the ones you don't

for constructives, any speed is fine if u share speech doc w me, anything not shared speak coherently

make sure to warrant and tell me why ur argument makes sense

pls signpost

in FF, write my RFD for me:

what the most important argument in the round is, why it is so important, why you are winning that argument, and tell me why it weighs over anything else

dont lie about ur ev

Hey! I am Will Spencer, a High School student - Graduating class of 2025.

About me - I really love speech and debate with all of my heart. I think it is the best possible thing any student can do with their time and it gives us all something to work for without worrying about never getting a chance to play. I compete in a lot of different events, but primarily LD, PF, and IX. I was a national qualifier in IX last year (where I made it far in storytelling!) and a PF qualifier from the Yellow Rose district in Texas this year. I also compete and high levels of congress. I am the team captain of THEO Christians debate team, so I often judge and give feedback and am coaching others.

LD - For LD, the best thing you can focu on is framework. Please don't leave value/criterion in the dust like I see happening a lot. Your case depends on your V/C and taking out your opponents V/C is the name of the game, that's what makes LD unique. I really don't mind if you debate more traditionally or progressively, I can follow along either way. At the end of the day, my vote will be based off of the flow, and off of the V/C argument. Who best achieves what V/C and clearly solidified their cases on my flow? That's the winner. I do judge Cross, because it's my favorite part of the debate. No matter if you are asking or responding, take control of the round and be effective in your questions/responses.

PF -PF is my baby, and again- I don't mind trad or prog debate. I've seen and done it all so go for it, but please respect the event. It isn't policy so go wild but don't turn this into a policy round. I appreciate a FW in PF but it isn't necessary, it just makes my voting easier. I won't vote on who I think should win, I'll vote on who my flow said won. So clearly signpost every argument, maybe give me some offtime roadmaps, and having a great framework for me to vote under makes my job much easier and makes your case seem much more convincing. For crossfire, have fun. I don't mind if it becomes snarky and/or aggressive but don't yell at each other. If i round is heated, i understand more than anyone that you may want to be aggressive or a but snarky. Don't bully anybody and be respectful of your opponents but this is a debate, I expect clash and I expect emotion. If even I think you are being too mean, you probably are.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

What’s up! my name is Aarya Srinivasan and I’m a junior at Archbishop Mitty.

Add me to the email chain: aaryasrinivasan25@mittymonarch.com

I have done three years of varsity speech and debate, and I have competed in the events Policy, LD, Parli, Congress, IX, and Impromptu.

My judging paradigm is mostly just offense/defense, but if both sides want a slow round I will judge it lay.

Since my main event is policy, I am tech over truth, which means that I will believe anything you say in the round regardless of how true it is in the real world as long as it is argued well. Spreading is chill, but I dislike irrational link chains so make sure that there aren’t some crazy gaps in between your cards. If both sides do NOT agree on a fast round, RUN THEORY!

For my preferences, I enjoy listening to logical and complex arguments backed up by well researched evidence. Quality Cards are KEY, make sure that you do not mistag or misrepresent your evidence. Know the warrants to your cards, if you can’t explain WHY something is the case you’re prolly not gonna be very convincing. I will not judge intervene to disqualify bad evidence/lying, but I will likely drop your speaks.

Also, it’s no fun to watch a round where nobody clashes, so make sure that you call out specific arguments your opponents made and then respond to them. I also like to see debaters have a command of the topic, so be confident and passionate when you’re speaking. And above all, be nice, and have some fun.

If you have any other questions about how I'll evaluate the round, just ask.

LD/PF/Parli:

Not super experienced with any of these events, but TRUST I will understand whatever you decide to run. I more or less know about the PF and LD topics, but still explain your points clearly.

Tricks are cool - if you're going against them run theory I'll vote on it. Also you can run an RVI vs the theory I'll vote on it if its good enough cuz it disincentivizes frivolous theory.

K's and Phil is cool just explain your phil well and explain how it contextualizes the round don't just vomit a ton of lit at me and expect me to give you the win.

CX is super important, I don't necessarily flow it, but it helps speaks a lot.

Write my ballot in the final focus. Makes my job easier lol.

POLICY SPECIFICS:

These are guidelines. Don’t change what you’re running after reading this, this is just to know some of my opinions on things. Run what you know, and can debate best.

I will vote on literally anything (Death Good, Spark, Nihilism, Warming Fake, etc.) Just debate it properly.

Theory - Love theory debates on the Aff and Neg. Reasonability is not a response, you have to explain why it’s reasonable. But go ahead and be as dirty as you want lol debate is a game, if you can defend your interpretation of debate I’ll vote on it.

T - I love T. Affs that barely connect to the topic are pain to debate, so go ahead and try to penalize them by running a good T shell.

CP - Run literally whatever, but be able to defend yourself if you run a Process CP or PIC. I ran 4th Branch and White Supremacist CP all year so I love a good cheaty CP, and the resulting theory debate too.

K - Be very clear on Framwork, Alt, and ROB. I have experience with Set Col, Cap, Security/Militarism and Model Minority. Anything else will likely need you to explain yourself in plain terms, If I don’t understand the lit terms you’re using I cannot vote for you.

K -Affs - Don’t have an issue with these. Make sure to have a good response on the ROB vs Ballot Pic because that’s what I end up voting on a lot of the time.

DA - These are pretty standard. UQ, Link, I/L, Impact.

Case - I feel like the case debate is a lost art. So many Affs have terrible link chains. Solvency Takeouts and Link Takeouts are great and can literally be made as analytics to decimate an opponents case and force them to waste time by clarifying in their next speech. Go for Thumpers on literally every extinction impact. Impact Turns are also really fun.

varsity lder and have done tech+lay parli, pf (kinda), and speech. i'm a sophomore mvla student judge

general -- be nice, polite, and respectful. have fun!

ld -- off-time roadmap/signposting. feel free to soft spread. collapsing cool, good weighing. i time you but time yourselves. shadow extensions = new args. no gaslighting pls. i'll try my best to protect the flow. extra speaks if you make cx fun

parli -- full tech>truth. tag teaming cool. do whatever you want as long as it's not abusive/problematic and i know what's going on! call POO's, but i'll still protect flow (maybe lol)

t/k -- i love theory! friv is cool, if you spread your k i need good articulation, i'll eval round in wtv way you tell me to (don't overestimate me tho, i don't think i can effectively eval rly high level tech debate -- multiple theory shells, tricks, and k's are prolly the max for one round). tbh i doubt any of this is gonna happen in keefer but i just wanted a t/k section

pf -- same thing as ld

speech -- no idea lmao (sound good?)

other -- i won’t flow over time, 10 sec grace. i sorta flow poi answers, they're also binding. idk abt cx but ig same thing applies

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Georgiana Hays Update

don't read theory in front of me if you're going to use it to exclude novices at a novice-friendly post-season tournament. thanks!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Parent judge so go slow. Please state your framework clearly.

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

I am a current debater.

Make sure to act confident and have good posture, as it really effects the impact your arguments have. Use clear, well thought out, and valid arguments, and make sure to provide evidence for all points you make. Without any evidence to back up your argument, there is nothing that shows me your argument is even true.

Just restating your warrant and link will count as extending the argument, but if you drop an argument I will not count it in my flow.

If a debater ever is rude, makes sexist/racist comments, or conducts themselves in an unprofessional manner, they will NOT be getting my ballot.

PF debator for two years, I will be flowing the round so please add me to the email chain/doc: gracewang26@mittymonarch.com

Tech>Truth

I'm not experienced with theory so run it at your own risk. Spreading is okay but not preferred.

Please signpost/use roadmaps. Make sure you weigh and extend the arguments.

I am a lay judge who has judged middle school and high school debate, as well as high school speech.

When judging debate, I consider flow and evidence. I appreciate debaters speaking at a reasonable speed to ensure understanding.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

- please set up a chain ASAP so we can start on time : )

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

about me:

4th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poi, poetry, ads, ca, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, and I do a lot of performance stuff, but I’ve run all types of arguments on both sides and have voted for all kinds of arguments too

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
• More than 5 off creates shallow debates. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, JBurke, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Brayan Loayza, JMeza, Bryan Perez, Diego Flores, Cmeow

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

DA/CP combo:

CPs are fun. Impact calc is key, how does the impact of the DA supersede AFF solvency claims?

K’s:

I usually run/most familiar with arguments relating to set col, antiblackness, racial cap, bio/necropolitics, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best. Just EXPLAIN your theory as if I know nothing bc I might not (pls don't just namedrop a philosopher and expect me to know them)

• Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

• K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
• Performance K: If you can explain how the performance is key to the aff, I love to see it and will probably offer extra speaker points for a good performance where you are not rushing
• Policy v K: I love judging clash debates. I think these are maybe the best for topic education (unpopular opinion). FW should be a big thing in these debates. What's my role? What's urs?
• KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance.

Education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. That means fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. Clash, role of the neg, and education are standards that are more debatable for me.

• Counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate. So is some sort of "debate key" or "ballot key" argument

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", and I looove creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level

if I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

- also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Misc:

• DO NOT steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

• I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, I'm gonna quote Cmeow's paradigm here bc they got a point "I read evidence when I'm confused about something, and I usually will do it to break the tie against arguments, or I will read ev if it's specifically judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never ever make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made."

• yellow is the worst highlight color. Don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow...

and most importantly, slay

Hello,

I do not have a lot of debate experience, but I do have some preferences.

Please do not speak very fast so your opponent including me can hear you clearly

Do not be rude to your opponents and please be on track of your own time,

Good Luck!

Hello. This is David Xiao. I have participated in Public Forum Debate for 4 years and speech for 3 at the High School level. I am comfortable flowing arguments, and tend to favor arguments of substance over speaking skills. I dislike underhanded tactics. Please refrain from theory shells, critiks, bad faith accusations, misrepresenting evidence, or speaking too fast to be understood. If you believe someone broke the rules, state so clearly once, and return to the topic. Do not bully your opponent. Remain respectful and aware of commonsense throughout the debate. Grace period is fifteen seconds unless otherwise stated. Breaking any of the above will result in point deduction, and strikes in extreme cases.

I specialize in Public Forum. I will ask that teams collapse properly and provide weighing mechanisms by summary. Teams should be able to clearly articulate their chains of logic in laymen's terms. They should extend all arguments they do not wish to drop, and must respond to all opposing arguments (within reason), or be considered a drop. I will keep track of drops. Muddled and close debates will be judged based off drops, or weighing in summary and final focus, not cross. I will be graceful to new teams, but expect experienced teams to follow standard protocol faithfully.

Impromptu and other shorter Speech Events will be judged purely on speaking skill. Feel free to be creative or generate information on the fly, I will not be running fact checks. Extemp and similarly long events research based events will be subject to informational scrutiny, but ultimately I still lean towards speaking skill for a ranking.

That is all. Feel free to reach out before the round for clarification.

(Note: I am currently on a new device, audio and video will likely be broken for online events. Expect slower responses through chat.)

I am a lay judge. I have been judging speech and debate for quite a while now. When it comes to debate, please read your case TO me not AT me. Don't bore me with random facts. During the debate, assume I know nothing about the topic. When it comes to framework, keep it simple and make sure your case follows your framework the entire time. Please always explain and weigh impacts and arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a few jokes and be humorous during debate speeches. As long as you are respectful and still on topic, go for it. I appreciate off time road maps to help me with flowing and ballots. Please speak clearly, don't spread and most importantly have fun!

Hi, if you can, please do not speak very fast. Thank you

I am a high school debater and have debated for 5 years. I will flow rounds and prefer a respectful round.