ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN!!!! email: alliintx@gmail.com

Experience: I did LD at The Wooodlands High School for four years and have taught at TDC for three years.

me as a debater: I did traditional debate for two years mostly on the Houston local circuit. Then my junior year transitioned to more LARP and K debate at natcircuit and state tournaments. My senior year was only natcircuit debate where I read a big mix of things. Mostly phil affs and a preformance aff and when negating read queer pess and questionably friv theory.

me as a judge: debate should be accessible for everyone. affs dont have to be topical, but should be able to win against t fw. I will layer the round how you tell me to.

pref short cuts:

phil - 1

theory - 1

identity k - 1

non t affs - 2

topicality - 2

larp - 2

tricks - 3

high theory k - 4

( I dont think i know everything about each type of these debates, I dont have a large preference on how you debate and can judge all of these rounds )

specifics:

LARP - very cool. these debates are fun, but pls have recent evidence. if your uniqueness card from 2019 is telling me telling me something is going to happen and your opponent points out that shouldve happened years ago, i will probs agree w your opponent. politics DA uniqueness should be cut from that week ( preferably day ) that you're reading it. perms are new advocacies. explain the netbenefit of the perm or I dont have a reason to vote on it. also... please weigh. plan affs are cool. nebel is also cool.

K's - I'm most familiar w idenity k's ( majority of what ive read has been queer theory and marxist lit ) and this is mostly what I read my senior year, but Im not a k hack. I did not read any high theory K's, but am willing to vote on them if you can explain them well. Ks need a solid framing mechanism and should have an alt that would solve the impacts. going for no link in the 2ar is underutilize, i think we give debaters too much credence on the link debate. with that being said, if youre reading a k you should have multiple links to the ac, and not just links to the topic. the 2nr on the k should have clear extensions of each part of the k, if youre missing a part I cant vote on it. floating pics are fun, just dont be sketchy if asked abt it in cross.

K Affs - love them. performances are cool. I think debate is a great space to share stories, types of lit and you should be able to do that if you wish. I dont care if you're topical, but I dont lean aff on t fw..

phil - I read with levinas, kant, hobbes, and agamben, but can pretty easily understand syllogisms that are explained. I see fw as an impact filter and default to confidence over modesty ( again, if you tell me differently Im open to that ) . also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

tricks - I had a moment this these. I think they can be fun debates, but dont read them if you're just going to make the round super messy. you should be very clear abt things in cross ( no sketchiness ) and somehow label each trick ( if its just one/two hidden in dont worry abt it, but there should not be an entire analytic paragraph filled w tricks, no fun . extensions of tricks should have explanations, not just repeating what you read in the constructive.

theory - WEIGH BETWEEN STANDARDS!!! dont make me decide if I think ground is more important than clash. absolutely have paradigm issues. I love semantic " I meets ". nebel/t fw/ defend multiple states is fine, explain the abuse story. I dont think its that abusive to read a super popular plan aff, you should probably have prep against it, but Im totally willing to vote on this if you win the flow. Friv theory is fun, will also vote according to the flow on this. " aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific as opposed to generic e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way " - yoakum

feel free to email me or ask any questions before round! have fun and good luck!!

Experience:

Hello everyone! My name is Marley Anthony and I attend Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. I was a debater throughout high school, and now I judge. I have judged many debate rounds, and as a former debater, I try my hardest to be as helpful as possible. That said, I like to leave specific feedback in the comment sections so please read those carefully. I also like to leave a thorough RFD so do not overlook it. Please ask all logistical questions about my judging style before the round starts. I am open to MOST stylistic choices (i.e., speed, frameworks, formatting, etc.) I am not a parent nor a lay judge so I am more open to faster-paced speaking styles. Again, please ask me, and don't hesitate if you have any relevant questions about the round before it starts.

Conduct:

While I have rarely experienced this, I would be remiss if I didn't state that I have a no-tolerance policy for any and all (overtly) rude behavior (i.e., blatant yelling, name-calling, excessive sarcasm, etc). Debate is supposed to be a lucrative enjoyable experience to help you grow both personally and academically. As a former debater, I understand that at times rounds can get stressful, but I encourage all of you to be respectful and operate under the golden rule. I will be making slight to severe speaker point deductions to reflect the above behavior(s) if applicable to the round.

Please be respectful and considerate of everyone's time and efforts.

Tracking & Flow:

Please keep in mind that I like to flow all speeches except for crossfire, so please be mindful of your statements. If for whatever reason you misspoke, you must get creative in regards to how you get back on track. Again, I flow everything except for crosses so please be intentional with any and all speeches.

Thank you, and good luck!

Hi guys!!! I’m Katie, I’m a junior in college at Fordham University :) I’ve done debate for about 6 years now (hs policy, currently starting a Fordham policy team, occasionally do apda)! I also have a few years of judging experience!

my email is kbaughman@fordham.edu for the email chain :)

I am open to all arguments, please run whatever you want! Tech>truth. I’ll vote on the flow.

I am primarily a policy debater, so some high concept K stuff you might have to do more work explaining to me, but I’m interested in hearing about it! :)

Don’t be a bad person please. Harmful behavior=tanked speaks.

I'm good with speed as long as it’s clear(ish). Also good with no speed. Won’t impact speaks either way.

If you’re speeding through blocked out analytics I’d prefer you don’t delete from speech doc before sending to the email chain. If I can’t understand these and they’re not on the doc I can’t flow them.

Open cross is good.

Arguments:

T: Would prefer if affs don’t run untopical policy affs and negs don’t run T against topical affs. I think it’s boring debate. Would need heavy work on the flow (or substantial dropped args) for it to be a voter.

Case: I probably care about solvency more than most people. I’d vote on case turns if they’re dropped or really good. Please defend your case. Please give me framing, I want a reason to pref your impacts.

DAs: Good, standard offense. Please make the link specific to case. Generic DAs like politics, etc are kind of dull.

CPs: CPs are fun. I’ll vote on them. To vote on them I’d really like some time spent on the flow- provide more than just CP text.

K affs: Please be sure to explain arguments fully as I'm less familiar with K affs, but if you want to run one, do it!

Neg v K affs: I'll vote on FW. I’ll also vote on KvK. Generally, try to engage with the aff K advocacy at least a little.

Ks: I like Ks! Generally I’m not super experienced with more specific or obscure Ks so please explain them. I generally prefer Ks with an alt other than rejection (either debate space or some sort of action); if you’re running rejection you need to do a lot of work w link debate. Negs, please have a good answer to the perm. Affs, win the perm. Both sides, win your framework.

Theory: I default to dropping the argument, not the team. Won’t usually vote on theory unless it’s dropped or really important in the round.

LD:

I did a bit of NSDA LD in HS. Less familiar with nat-circuit LD (I’m from MO) but familiar with policy so feel free to run whatever :)

CPs/Ks: Enjoy these! Most of my policy paradigm applies here.

LD theory: Make sure it’s clearly explained as I might not be super familiar, but definitely open to it.

V/VC: Generally see V/VC as framing— if you see it differently please make the argument. I want to know why your V and VC matter. You can win without winning V/VC.

Thank you guys so much for reading! I’m really excited about this activity and I hope everyone has fun :)

I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

Arjuna Bazaz, UVA '26 arjunabazaz@gmail.com(chain)

Round Prefs

Treat me as a lay.

This is my first time judging a debate tournament although I did policy back when I was in school. Because of this, I know the basics of debate and stuff so you can use some jargon(turn, weigh, impact, non-unique).

I am basically going to let debaters do all the timing, email chains, all that, not going to intervene at all.

I don't flow cross

Defense and offense is not sticky HOWEVER, if you don't respond in second rebuttal to something that was said in first rebuttal and they bring it up in first final focus then I'm gonna flow it(basically respond to stuff that was said).

Please don't run prog I hate non-topical K's I think they are very dumb I will drop you immediately

Don't run really squirrely arguments that are really dumb just because they have nuke war impacts I prefer well warranted arguments that actually make sense. That doesn't mean to exclusively read stock args but I prefer something that has a reasonably decent warrant.

Personal prefs

Be nice in round

Seem like you know what you are talking about.

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

I have been judging PF for three years. I flow to capture and compare both arguments I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

Please speak at a conversational pace. If you spread, I will certainly get lost and the round will effectively be over for your side because I won't have enough on my sheet to extend in your favor.

I like off-time roadmaps. It helps me create a better flow, which in turn helps your case be evaluated properly.

I don't care if you debate while sitting or standing.

I'll be looking at my flow most of the time, which is why you're seeing the top of my head.

I don't flow cross-fire, so you need to bring it up in a speech if you want it to be considered.

The impact is probably not nuclear war and/or extinction.

Don't waste my time, or your opponents time by running a non-topical case. If you decide to waste everyone's time with debate theory or some other nonsense, I'll immediately score the round 26 - 30 against you, and leave.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I recognize that parent judges who've never debated handle situations differently. Below is my ever evolving list of how I handle situations that may come up. I provide this list because if one of these situations does occur, I don't want you to lose focus as you frantically try to make clear to me that X situation occurred, which leads to Y result.

CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS

I weigh your case based on the time you commit to each contention or subpoint. If you spend 10 seconds on a contention or subpoint in Constructive, no amount of magnification in Summary will rehabilitate it to be the singular winning point.

I don't have a liberal bias or opposition to data from conservative leaning groups. Solid evidence is solid evidence.

REBUTTAL THOUGHTS

"Dropped arguments, are conceded" is not an automatic path to victory. It's still up to you to explain why their conceding a point leads to your victory. If the opposing debaters dropped or conceded a minor point you made, see CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS before you collapse on it.

SUMMARY THOUGHTS

Collapsing your contentions is a logical, thoughtful and strategic part of debate. I will not hold it against you.

I will not consider new arguments and data sources in Summary. Exception is if you're rebutting something that was said in Rebuttal, then you can raise appropriate defenses but not launch a new counter argument. Weighing is not a new argument because it's an analysis of what has been said already. However, if you sneak a new argument into your weighing, I will discard it.

Debaters occasionally argue probability weighing. The challenge is when they ask me to insert bias in weighing the argument for them, something I will not do. Be mindful as to how much work you're asking me to do to render a decision in your favor.

FINAL FOCUS THOUGHTS

By this point in the debate I'm thinking about picking a winner and writing my RFD. You will be best served if your speech does that for me.

It's easier to follow your Final Focus if everything in it is from Summary.

Stating your case with passion is great, but arguing with my flow is not. Stay truthful with what happened, and lead me to the answer you want through weighing.

Speak comprehensibly please. If you speak too fast and I am struggling to follow, its not in your favor

do not speak over your opponent or partner, or cut-in. its disrespectful

Avoid being loud; create more impact with evidence than decibel levels of your voice

mis-stating evidence is not good.

delaying cards sharing is also unprofessional

I am a parent judge, and having been judging quite a bit of HS PF in the past couple years.

What you need to do to win my ballot:

Speaking Style: Slow, clear, articulate; please be respectful and professional during crossfire (you will get better speaking points if so)

Content: Please support your contentions with sufficient evidence and substantiate your point of view, explain all of your links clearly and with logic

Deciding Factor: Who is able to explain their arguments strongly and more convincingly; I believe crossfire and the follow ups are important in asking and answering questions, identifying gaps in others' argument, clarifying and strengthening your position.

Theory: PF is designed to provide middle and high school students opportunities to debate on real life topics, to demonstrate understanding and reasoning on substantial events. Even though theory has a place in PF, I would not judge a theory debate.

add me on the email chain! lexcynthiayc@gmail.com

I competed in LD for Lexington High School from 2014 to 2018, and have been away from debate until late 2023. So, if I don't remember certain types of arguments (IVIs, etc.), it's because I'm old and rusty. I've been told that my facial expressions give away what I'm thinking, so you should probably use that to your advantage. Speed is fine, but I will ask you to slow down on T/theory/UV/tricks. I flow by ear, and I'll say "clear" twice. If I still can't understand you, I'll stop flowing. I'm most comfortable with K's (I love a good non-topical K aff), T/theory, LARP, phil is ok. My defaults: condo good (unless you're going for >3 offs), no RVIs, drop debater, CIs, theory highest layer.

For Preferences:

K - 1

LARP - 1 (LARP v LARP tends to get very messy and hard to evaluate, please collapse appropriately and not go for every single argument in your last speech, extinction impacts are boring, LARP v K is fun)

Theory/T - 1

Phil - 2/3 (I don't understand high theory stuff like Baudy/Deleuze, read at your own risk)

Traditional - 2 (how i feel about trad is how i feel about a plain bagel - lukewarm but I'll still eat it)

Tricks - 4 (only evaluated indexicals, if you go for tricks, please only collapse to one and explain it very well)

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

on speaks:

how to get a 30: give me an overview, collapse appropriately, don't read > 3 offs (my favorite roadmap is "1 off case"), and sign post clearly

how to boost speaks: being funny, being nice to your opponent, email chain already set up, conceding prep/speech time (tell me how much), smart CX

how to get <25 speaks: going on your phone (beyond setting a timer), telling someone that "they don't look black so therefore they can't read afropess" (yes, this did happen), aggro^2 (i love sassy cx/rebuttals, but do not be problematic)

K

I have a soft spot for non-topical K affs, performance is fun, give me warrants as to why it's good for debate. You should have some solvency, clear ROB, and framing. Don't read a K in front of me because I like them, I have heard some problematic extensions and I will not be afraid to dock speaks. Buzzwords need to make sense and you should absolutely know your lit if you read it in front of me. Feel free to impact turn on T/theory.

From Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Update-- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimismwithout any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about."

LARP

This is fine. Plans/CPs/DAs/PIC/Ks cool. My issue with judging LARP is that oftentimes the impact is extinction with the most generic cards (Avery/Pummer with util framing). Make sure you have a clear link story and that UQ is there (like within the last year, ideally the last few months). I think consult/communication CPs are lazy and don't make for good debate.

Theory/T

I really,really don't like frivolous theory (think spreading/condo bad). Disclosing is chill (aff should disclose 30 min prior to round, don't need to disclose if new - like actually new new, not just one card being changed). I'm not fully convinced you need full doc to be able to engage, tags + author + cite + first and last 3 words of card is good enough for me. If it's blatantly obvious that you are the more experienced debater in the round and you choose the lazy path like disclosure theory, I will be very unhappy (ceiling for speaks is probably a 26).

Also from Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with."

Phil

Most rounds have util as framing, which is fine, though I'm not convinced it's a great ethical theory. Comfortable with eval kant v util, all that good stuff.

I judged a couple of tournaments. Lay judge. Go slow. I know the topic. I will kind of flow but also have a good presence.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

Hello! My name is Zev Ginsberg, I am a current undergraduate at Florida State University. I have judged PF and Parli both in person and remotely, but I am still relatively new to judging. As such, I ask that you please speak clearly and signpost effectively so I may most faithfully adjudicate your round.

State what your contentions will be, then say your contentions, then summarize your contentions. It is your job to prove to me which contentions and points I should be voting on. Ultimately, I will choose the winner based on which team has more successfully proven their position to be valid and true.

Finally, please be respectful of your teammates, opponents, and, most importantly, have fun!

Thank you!

Zev

I like well explained and clear warrants

I equally weigh warrants over evidence. However, do provide and counter the evidence to support the warrants.

Please do not use complicated debate jargon (ex. we outweigh on pre-req, magnitude, and scope)

I generally think that public speaking is a huge part of the debate

I believe delivery with a clear and persuasive articulation is equally important. Do not speak too fast to add unnecessary words.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

If I call for a card, send it to my email and send the cut card. This includes PF.

This is not about the stats you have, if you are not making an analysis with your stats, that is reason enough to vote on presumption (please don't make me). Just having bigger numbers, doesn't mean the round is a clear win.

UNLESS IT IS A GAME CHANGER please for the love of whoever you pray to, do not try to win a debate round on recency of evidence. It becomes a moot point and a waste of your breath.

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I did IPDA- public debate- with during undergrad until Spring 2020. I now consult in disability advocacy and DEI development.


TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 1
Framework: 2
Theory: 2
Tricks: 5
Generic: 3-4


General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."


Speed:
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.


LARP:
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.


Ks:
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."


T/Theory :
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.


Phil/Framework:
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.


Tricks:
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”


Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one


Things I appreciate:
-Kindness
-Politeness
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Trigger warnings
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
-Having fun


Speaks:
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.


PS:
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.

PPS:

A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.




Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: sage.e.hooks@gmail.com
Text me 7..133...14..62......30
Or ask me before the round

Ovey Comeaux High School '23, Western Kentucky University '27

For IE/SPEECH EVENTS: I base ranks on passion, performance, and preparation. How much do you connect and care about your topic? How elevated and unique are you as a performer? How relevant and timely is your topic and how well do you understand it, as well as memorization?

Debate Paradigm:

Majority of my decision will be made on Clarity, Content, and Evidence.

How clear is the presentation of your information? How relevant, concise, and impactful is the content of your argument? Does the evidence support the claims and sides of your debate? A competitor who presents information in a way that I can repeat it back to you will, more times than not, get the win.

I am not biased on the medium of debate you take, but do consider how your form on debate contrasts or compares to the opponent. You want to build strong and virtually irrefutable arguments!

Above all: make the round YOURS. Have fun. Speech and Debate is, at its core, about expression, so express yourself. I am nothing but an observer, you are EVERYTHING! Good luck :)

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

• Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!

• Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

I am a parent judge but did Lincoln Douglas debate and extemp in high school so have some relevant experience. For me, debate is about persuasion — that means the arguments are centrally important of course, but so is presentation. I understand the need to speak quickly, but if you are so fast as to not be understandable, then you can’t persuade. Likewise, it’s important to be firm and stand your ground, but not to be rude or obnoxious. I prefer that you debate the merits of the topic rather than kritik, but that is your choice to make. Average speaker points will be high 28s or low 29s.

Parent judge

I cannot flow your speeches properly if your pace is too fast or if you are mumbling.

Make sure to be organized (if you present a roadmap, follow it clearly and signpost)

Collapse onto your main argument in summary, it makes the round much more cleaner and easier for me to vote on.

Make sure everything is warranted properly.

Extend everything you want me to consider in my RFD.

Add me to the evidence exchange email chain (jha.sharad11@gmail.com) but I won't review cards unless specifically mentioned in a speech.

I won't be timing so I trust that you and your opponents will keep each other accountable.

Make sure you are being respectful at all times.

Good luck and have fun!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: zahrak031905@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and I am a freshman at the University of Rochester. I debated policy for 4 years at Lexington high school.

I’m open to all arguments, and if you are a novice it might be better to run something that you understand well so that it is easier to explain and support. The most important thing is to learn, try your best, and have fun!!

DO:

• Line by Line - make sure you are responding to all of your opponents’ arguments and extending your own, and keep track to see if your opponents’ didn’t answer one or more of your arguments, so that you can use that to explain why that makes your argument stronger

• Explain the warrants of your arguments

• Impact calc, explain why your argument is more significant by comparing your magnitude, timeframe, and probability to your opponents’

• Prioritize your arguments in your rebuttal speech

• Tell me the lens that I should vote through, and why I should vote for you

DON'T

• Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

• Be rude

• Interrupt your partner or your opponents

Also

• Let me know if you have tech issues!

• With online debating, clarity > speed

Remember, try your best, learn some new things, and have fun!!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

monkey watch round monkey takes notes monkey votes on extensions and weighing banana stick to wall so defence sticky.

I was a 4 year public forum debater with 4 years of parli experience before that. I am a flow judge. Tech > Truth. As tabula rasa as a person who hasn't been living under a rock.

My pronouns are He/Him. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist. No slurs. Aggression is okay but when it becomes ad hominem I will drop you.

Evidence is crucial, and don't paraphrase or misrepresent evidence. I would rather you don't do progressive (K's, theories, etc.) because I don't have a lot of experience with it. I will make an exception for TW or any sort of "ism" theories. Don't spread.

I will be listening to, but not voting off anything said in crossfire. If your opponents concede something then you must bring it up in your next speech for me to consider it.

I am very lazy so please collapse. Please weigh properly so that I don't have to. I really like sign posting and off time road maps. Please extend your arguments.

No new arguments or frontlines after summary.

Higher speaks if you send a speech doc or let me know orally you read this.

Add me to email chains: djk275@cornell.edu

My name is Richard Lay and I am a first year parent judge.

For Public Forum:

• I will be taking notes during the round
• Please speak slowly and clearly, don't spread
• Do not use debate jargon unless it's defined in the round
• Truth > tech
• Weigh impacts clearly and tell me how to vote throughout summary and final focus
• Respect your opponents

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Pfers: Round should start at start time, that means first word should be spoken at start time. I will dock your speaks by .2 for every minute past start time that the first constructive has not been sent.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), debate coach at Seven Lakes HS (‘23-Current)

Political science major with a focus in international relations/political theory and a philosophy minor.

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round - If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.

I apologize in advance for the horrific typos that may be in your ballot. I tend to quickly jot my thoughts down as to not keep tab/debaters waiting too long. I usually fix ballots after rounds, but the deeper we get into elims the less time I have. My ballot is usually just my oral rfd, but if you have any questions just send me an email.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col/Phil > Identity Ks > Tricks/LD Theory

^^^ Based on my level of experience with specific args - For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well.

Tech > truth in most cases - I think my role as a judge is to be an impartial arbiter and evaluate the debate skills of the debaters. For the most part, a dropped argument is a true argument. However, when arguments are equally contested, prior knowledge will inevitably lower the burden of proof for arguments that are more true.

I think almost everything is debatable, will vote on almost anything with a warrant and impact

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing you do and the more judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I don't care how good your evidence is if you don't debate it well. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will still follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L)

Time yourself and your opponents

-------

Specific Args:

My paradigm for LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it and that it is up for you to debate.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before. I am just less familiar with these literature bases and am better for Ks like cap and security.

2. In round violence- I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated then I am more likely to be convinced by FW.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

CP --- I default to judge kick if there’s no offense on the CP. Creative and niche CPs that actually solve are cool.

DA —- I'll evaluate them in the order of Impact > Link > Uniqueness when no other offense is present. I tend to default to evaluating the round like a policy maker. I can vote on risk of a link if it is contextualized to weighing, but I think it’s also possible to zero the link in rare instances.

Theory—- My threshold for voting on theory is slightly higher than for other args,

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I err towards the team defending against theory since that minimizes the need for judge intervention. In CX, theory is fine since there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in CX as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry.

Disclosure: I do not want to see your laptop screen after the speech. If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Your best bet with me for PF is to run traditional or policy arguments.

If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks and give you at least a 28.

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

I will judge the round like a policy maker under and offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

Weighing - I notice that in most PF rounds, weighing doesn’t end up playing a large part in my decision making process despite the fact that the impact is the first place I look to when evaluating the round. This is because PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not tell me why, for example, I should prefer time frame over magnitude. They also do not contextualize the weighing to the amount of the impact that is actually accessed.

K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes but that is doubtful.

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

Second rebuttal must extend case but I do not require you to give an overview - responding to lbl is considered an extension i.e. answer the no link is extending your link but you must also extend arguments dropped by the other team if you want me to evaluate them at the end of the round. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

LD ---

I ran phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge. The only thing my high school experience affects is my familiarity with LD theory and tricks. - I will judge these rounds based on my knowledge of theory in policy.

I judge phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. As in, I tend to switch back and forth between LD being about truth testing vs competing worlds depending on the content of the round. In a policy v phil round you should explicitly tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

Phil: yes <3 love it but only when it is substantial. I think debates like Kant v Util are fun. I have a pretty good background for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.)

Theory/Tricks: I might be unfamiliar with some args you make. This means my capabilities to flow your 32 point analytical 1NC shell decreases.

----

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there.

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, are funny, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

Hi,

I will mainly look at the consistency in argumentation for both teams, and I prefer strong reasoning with concrete examples. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand. I do not have much knowledge about this topic, so please try to make my job easier by going over the topic.

I am a history professor and a parent judge.

Good luck to all!

This is my first time judging Public Forum debate, and I am not familiar with the jargon or format. But all hope is not lost. I was a policy debater in both high school and college and was in the elimination rounds of the NDT debating for the University of Texas. I am therefore very familiar with competitive debate in general. I will enter the round tabula rasa and vote for the side that wins the debate, not the side who makes the arguments with which I agree. If you want to speak fast, go for it but please be clear, especially since I am getting back up to speed. I will signal you if you are going too fast for me. And again, please avoid PF jargon.

A couple of specifics:

"Kritiks"

"Kritiks" were first developed in the early 1990s, right at the end of my policy debate career. I have never been a big fan of them. Here, again, I'll be tabula rasa, but I tend to think of these arguments as easy to beat. I would rather hear a really good debate about the substance of the issues.

Theory

I'm not experienced with the PF theory arguments, so if you want to make one you need to explain it clearly and avoid the jargon and acronyms.

Background

I am a practicing lawyer and will readily understand legal-based arguments.

I have been judging PF for the past 3 years.

Be crisp in your contentions, clearly stating them; quality over quantity of contentions matters to me!!

Be respectful in your tone and presentation to your opposing team, especially during cross fire.

Good Luck Teams

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

• Flay/treat me more lay
• Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Experience

Umich'25 :D

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few circuit PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

Parent and never have done debate. Please talk very slowly and explain everything clearly. Dont be rude in crossfire. Dont use any complex debate words. Please provide definitions for words or terms that a normal person wouldn't know as well.

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

Interp Events-

- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?

SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate

• Be specific with the topic at hand
• Not a fan pf spreading
• please be respectfull
• I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

I’m a parent judge with not a lot of experience judging. I would prefer debaters to not speak too fast.

Please have clear, well-substantiated, logical arguments. I weigh arguments supported by evidence.

Be respectful and have fun.

I am a new parent lay judge. Signposting will help me best appreciate your arguments, please treat others with respect, and please refrain from using technical debate terms.

I am a parent judge. Please talk slowly and monitor your own time.

Evidence is important:

1) Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's.

2) Tell me why I should believe your author is saying. With that being said, I tend to believe data, statistics, and empirics over author's opinions.

3) I put greater weight behind recent cards,

Very experienced in BP Debate. Experienced in PF and other typical high school formats as well. I have limited experience with K's. I do my best to judge specifically by the rule book and rubric of the relevant format, but I also consider any tournament specific norms or instructions from conveners holistically.

Member of the Debate Union at UCLA.

go UCLA !

I participated in debate and speech in high school and have 7+ years of experience in judging debate, including several national qualifier tournaments. I appreciate a fast talker, but only if you can still speak clearly. I flow the rounds and tend make decisions after re-reading my notes after the round (likely flowing stock issues as the round goes). Showing respect to your teammate and opposing team is paramount to me, but I appreciate a strongly made/passionate argument. I am looking for the most logical argument overall (what team made the most sense), but ability to explain yourself in your own words and confidence in knowledge are close seconds. If I can tell you know what you are talking about, it will go far. Secondly I appreciate a powerful public speaker who holds my attention and has ability to explain abstract topics with ease and efficiency. I will always vote for the team that made the most sense - even if I don't think that team was "right". I don't love topicality arguments but if it is going to be claimed, claim it early and back it up quickly. I appreciate creativity and confidence.

-Lay judge

-No Ks or theory

-No spreading, please don't speak too fast

-Please make your logic clear, provide evidence and reasoning to back up a claim

-Please treat each other with respect

Have fun!

Lay Judge, speak slowly and clearly

Tell me why you win in back half speeches, super clear impacts, comparatively weigh and metaweigh. Don't use jargin.

Good luck and have fun!

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.

Hi,

I'm a parent judge.

I would like to focus on the clarity, structure, logic, consistency, teamwork and effectiveness of the speeches for the evaluation.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could speak with succinct organization so that the speeches don't have to be presented in a rush.

Please maintain mutual respect throughout all sessions.

Thanks.

Portola High School 22' | UC Davis 26'

Contact: mdlyoung@ucdavis.edu

Experience:

Hello! I'm Madeleine and I'm one of the head coaches at New England Academy! I've been working at NEA since 2019 and have been debating since ~2016 where I've competed in Modified Parliamentary, Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum.

Preferences

• I would consider myself comfortable with technical debate (if you can use theory well, I love to see it and spreading can be done well!), but I love an easy to follow uncomplicated debate! Theory should not be taking up more time than substance. Doing so will diminish the quality of the debate

• I do value stage presence a lot and consider pace/organization a lot when it comes to speaker scores as well.
• Impacts and weighing are VERY important to me
• signposting is important

i prefer a more lay style of debate