PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

Craig J. Albert
October 2016

I was a policy debater for Bronx Science (1971-1975) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975-1979). I flow the round and I vote based on the flow.

I am the quintessential blank slate (whiteboard); you are the chalk (dry erase marker).  Pretty much everything is debatable but you need to do the work; I will not do it for you. 

I like it when you show me that you are thinking about the round while you are in the round.  Issue perception and flexibility count for a lot.  Being able to take an argument from one part of the flow and apply it elsewhere is a great skill.

Left to my own devices in a PF round, and unless I am persuaded otherwise, I simply believe that I have been asked to decide whether the resolution is more likely true (in which case it is to be adopted) than false.  You are free to argue any paradigm or method of analysis that you please.  If the debaters do not argue a mode of analysis, then I will use a private, undisclosed mode when trying to weigh at the end.  Usually that involves trying to understand the arguments as meshing with one another and then weighing probabilities, benefits and harms.  It's a mistake, though, for the debaters to make the judge go to a default analysis mode.  As I have told decades worth of debaters, “Your job is to write the ballot for the judge; don’t trust the judge to write it on his own.”

I do take the rules seriously, so if you foolishly wanted me to abandon a rule, you would need to make an argument as to why. I encourage you to read the NSDA’s rules because they represent the starting point of the debate; you were invited to the tournament to debate under those rules and you accepted that invitation.   In other words, you could try to deviate and it might even succeed, but there would be some very heavy lifting involved and you probably would not have the time in which to do it. 

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Don't make me intervene-- use weighing analysis, framework to make my decision easy. Warrants > evidence. Ask me more specific questions before the round. I generally like to disclose as I feel oral feedback is more meaningful than anything I hastily scribble down in round

I am former 4 year public forum debater. I evaluate off the flow. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but I probably max out at about 250 words per minute. I do not expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary but think it can be very powerful in second summary (not necessarily needed though). I do not accept offensive extensions in final focus that were not in summary, but I do allow it for terminal defense. Of course, weighing should be done. Weighing is the way my ballot will eventually be decided. I only like off time road maps if you go out of traditional order in your speeches. I will try to intervene as little as possible, so it is helpful to tell me if a team extends through ink or something off the sort. I would prefer to not have to do that work myself. I do not flow crossfire, so if something important happens tell me in the next speech. If you have any other more specific questions, just ask me in person.

I did PF in high school but do not judge very often.

I'm open to all types of well-executed argumentation and I appreciate an interesting strategy. I vote on tech over truth. If you win on the flow then I don't need to personally buy your argument in order to vote for it.

Notes for Princeton Classic: I usually judge policy, although I have experience in both debating and judging PF. I will evaluate PF rounds in a very technical manner - I will not intervene on anyone's behalf, and I believe I should judge you on the merit of your arguments, rather than your speaking skills. That being said, I think that good speaking skills can make an argument more persuasive within the round and on my flow, especially in later speeches. 

Spread if you want to - I'm used to policy, and you probably won't approach that level of speed. Give me an off-time road map before you start your speeches. 

Policy Paradigm:

Strath Haven High School ’16 – three years of policy debate

University of Pennsylvania ’20 – first year of non-policy college debate

*If there is something I haven’t covered in my paradigm, or you don’t have time to read it fully, ask me before the round.

**Yes, I’d like to be on the email chain if there is one. My email is alexander.b138@gmail.com.

Notes on China Topic

I’ve done a fair bit of research on this topic, so I know a few things about the common affirmatives and off-case positions that are floating around. This topic has the potential to be incredibly broad, so there are some affirmatives where T seems extremely convincing.

Yale will be my first tournament officially judging this year, although I have judged some practice debates for Strath Haven over the summer.

Overview

Run the arguments that you are the most comfortable with – I am looking to vote for the team that makes the best strategic arguments and decisions.

Regardless of whether you read an aff that critically examines the topic or a traditional policy aff, clear explanation of exactly what the affirmative does will make it a much cleaner round with the least amount of intervention on my part. The same goes for the negative – if I don’t understand a part of the link story on the K/CP/DA, I will not vote for it.

Be respectful and courteous of the other debaters in the room – do not be overly aggressive during CX. I understand the competitive drive to win the round, but when that drive manifests itself in aggressive actions, you will lose major speaker points.

Quick answers:

·       Open CX is fine

·       I don’t take prep time for flashing

·       Go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity – I will yell “clear” if I can’t understand you.

Specific Arguments

Topicality: typically undervalued in high school debate. My threshold for voting on T will likely be lower than most judges, providing you can flush out a compelling reason to vote. Don’t throw voters like “education” at me without articulating the reasons why education or fairness are important to the activity, and why I should be voting for them. Also, make sure you understand exactly what the affirmative does if you go for T, and create a nuanced violation by the negative block.

Disadvantages: my most common 2nr in high school was DA and case. These debates are primarily won on the impact level – if you are not spending at least 30 seconds explaining how the DA outweighs/turns case in every speech (and probably more in the 2NR), you’re not creating a compelling framework for me to vote for the DA. Secondarily, make sure you explain how your warrants differ from the other teams – don’t pretend that tagline extensions answer their arguments.

Counterplans: you must have a semi-decent solvency advocate in the 1NC. I know that your condition CPs and process CPs will most likely have very generic advocates, so make sure you explain precisely how they would interact with the affirmative by the 2NC.

Kritiks: When I read Ks, I mostly read Marxism and Baudrillard, so I will be the most familiar with these arguments. I have a good grasp on postmodern theories, critical race theories, and securitization critiques. I do not have a good grasp on psychoanalysis or queer theory, so if that’s your thing, you will have to explain it very clearly.

Critical affirmatives: I have a lot of experience debating against critical affirmatives – just like “traditional” affirmatives, they can be either quite good or quite bad. The best ones have a specific philosophical mechanism that indicates how the affirmative operates, typically in regards to the resolution. The worst ones are a bunch of critical authors thrown together to create absolutely nothing. Make sure you’re reading the former, and you should be good.

The common framework or method arguments are much less persuasive when you are interacting with the topic while reading a critical aff – you are welcome to read an aff that isn’t related to the topic at all, but know that the negative could have several quite persuasive arguments that you should be prepared for.

Theory: go for it, but make sure that you fully commit. Chances are you will not win a round where half your 2AR is condo and half of it is case outweighs vs the DA.

Random Thoughts

I was a 2N in high school, so I will likely be inclined to protect the 2NR by ignoring new 2AR arguments. This does not mean I will reject 2AR spin and cross-application, but the moment that it becomes an unpredictable argument or extension, it won’t be on my flow.

Try to craft off-case strategies that don’t explicitly contradict.

Asking about preferred pronouns before the round seems to be a positive trend in debate. If someone accidentally misgenders another person in the round, please correct that person politely, and if necessary, communicate further with them after the debate.

Overviews should be short and should focus on the impact level on the debate – I believe this applies to DAs and case as well as Ks.

Your speaking style (tone of voice, speed, inflection, etc.) should not matter on my flow, but is undeniably important in your overall persuasiveness as a debater. 

I flow everything but what you say in cross, so repeat what happened in your speech if you think it helps your side. I am fine if you are assertive, but don't be obnoxious. Speaking quickly is fine, but do not tend towards spreading. 

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Former high school debater.

I will vote for the team that makes the most compelling argument for their side. I give special emphasis to reasoning over an overflow of evidence.

In the first crossfire, I expect both debaters to establish why we’re debating the issue at hand. In other words - why are we talking about this topic? Who can we expect to be affected by its outcome? I will use the arguments made relating to these factors to decide the round.

I have been a traditional debate judge for the last 4 years. I prefer:

• If you use a framework, then use it. I will not evaluate the framework if you drop it.
• I do not like disjointed arguments.
• I like a good balance between a warrant level and an evidence based debate. Warrants vs warrants will not work, AND number vs numbers will not work either. I would like to see an explanation for your evidence and WHY I should prefer yours over your opponents'.
• I DO NOT like speed and I will take off speaker points if I cannot understand you.
• I like humor if done correctly. :-)
• Remember, this is an educational activity. So keep your debate respectful and have fun!

I judge LD and PF at all levels. I debated all throughout high school: in LD my freshman year and in PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL). I have been judging debate for over 10 years.

For email chains, my email is taylordiken@gmail.com.

Style

• Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can reason them through. In Public Forum, though, you also need evidence to back up your claims.
• I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech WITHOUT signposting, you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level speed is not my preference.
• Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off.
• Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you get the speaker points you're looking for is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.

Technicalities

• Time yourself, time your partner, and time your opponents. Keep each other honest. As the judge, I will keep the official time.
• No new evidence can be presented after the second crossfire - I will not flow it and you'll waste your time. No new arguments should be presented after grand cross.
• Summary is a summary and final focus is a final focus. Do not use summary as a rebuttal or FF as a summary.
• When required, I disclose only the result of the round. I do not give oral critique. I generally do not answer questions after the round like "What did you think of x" as it gives the debater(s) an unfair advantage. I write any comments on the ballot instead so the information goes to your coach as well.

Judging

• I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
• If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 4th year judging PF. I am also a political scientist, which makes me pretty pretty skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

While I encourage you to use whatever method you need to time yourself, I will have the official time with me, including your prep time. When the time is up, complete your sentence and be prepared to move on to the next part of the debate.

You may speak as fast or as slow as you like - however - if I can't understand what you are saying, it may not be helpful to your argument.

1st and 2nd cross are individual crosses. Your partner should not be assisting you during this time.

My personal opinions on whatever the topic might be will not interfere with how well you make your case. Convince me and you will win my vote.

Best of luck to everyone!

Jim Hanson

Judging Philosophy 2017

Executive Director

Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Foundation

jim@climbthemountain.us

President

West Coast Publishing

jim@wcdebate.com

I have coached and judged NDT-CEDA, NPTE-NPDA, Policy-CX, LD, and Public Forum Debate at the regional and national circuit levels including national champions and major national tournament champions. I debated high school policy and college CEDA and NDT debate long ago. I have been involved in the speech and debate community since 1976 as a frosh in high school and continue that tradition by helping new speech and debate programs as well as existing ones to succeed with my work with Climb the Mountain and West Coast.

My Default Decision-making: I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.

EVERYONE: STYLE ISSUES

1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning.

2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.

3. Please extend evidence by the tag with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer).

4. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”), 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents and usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.

5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one card turn that turns into 5 minutes of additional links and impacts in later speeches. I am lenient about new arguments until the very last speaker in the debate. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue because of the new argument and why that was so critical.

6. Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use followup questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.

7. Speed:

--Open Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA: National Circuit style is fine for me although I prefer a rate at about 80% of high speed debates.

--In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATERS MAINLY: KEY TO MY DECISION

Cases should provide quality evidence with warrants and impacts and should address key arguments about the topic—those arguments can be creative and unusual but since it is public forum they should be real ones that experts/the public are discussing.

Read evidence (quotations) in the rebuttal speeches and directly answer your opponent’s case arguments—don’t just cross-apply your case contentions.

Summary speakers should primarily/nearly exclusively defend their cases rather than also attacking their opponents’ cases (which was just done by the rebuttalists).

Winning the debate means winning the contentions with the most impact. Explaining how/why your strongest arguments outweigh the opposing teams’ arguments is a good idea.

NPTE-NPDA ONLY: TRADITIONAL VERSUS LINE BY LINE REBUTTALS

NPTE-NPDA debaters: If you are going to debate national circuit line by line style (which is totally fine), then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the last speech. If so, I support in NPDA-NPTE, MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 2 to 4 key answers on each position. If a team splits the block—then deal with it—don’t argue abuse because I am highly unlikely to vote on block splitting is abusive (however, if a tournament's rules ban splitting the block, i will follow the tournament's rules).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: TOPICALITY AND THEORY

1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan” types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical.

2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care).

3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it—don’t waste time arguing theory. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other.

4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative.

5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated in the text of the plan.

6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult/condition counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means.

7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. on the "pressure china topic" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan is probably also not topical).

8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan nor EU nor UN Counterplan.

9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such counterplans.

10. Object Fiat: Probably bad but I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should be ready to defend US action but there's a limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms.

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: DISADS

Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disadvantage—that is by far the most important part of a disad to me (uniqueness and impacts important too but links MORE important).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: KRITIKS

• Negatives should have specific links (links are key!!!), clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms.

• I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the 1NC. If it isn’t, I give the 1AR tons-o-latitude.

• I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter.

• Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Debters: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts.

• “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc.

• Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments.

• Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm uses the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik.

• "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count.

• Negatives that run performativity/project kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the 1NC/LOC speech (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the next negative speeches, I let the affirmative make new responses even if it is the 2AR in LD or PMR in NPTE-NPDA). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative case.

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

Intro: Hello! I am so excited to be judging back at UPenn. I graduated from Penn in 2016 with a Masters in Higher Education so it's always good be home. I competed in PF & expository speaking in High School (graduated 2010) so I am somewhat familiar with PF. I completed my undergraduate degree at Washington State University and currently work at Columbia University in student advising. P.S. I have extensive experience in undergraduate admissions, so ask away : )

Do:

- guide me through your arguments; I've been out of debate for ~8 years now I won't be able to jump to any conclusions

- use as much numerical data ask possible; it helps me understand your argument

-stay on topic. I don't like hearing on things that are only tangentially related to the topic. If you are going to go on a ramble, direct it back to the topic at hand.

-quality evidence > quantity of evidence

-Stand when presenting, if possible

-Manage your own prep time and be honest about it

Don't

-yell, scream, raise your voice

-disrespect your opponent in any way - it will cause loss of speaker points immediately
- send docs during the round

-ask me to disclose at the end of round, I won't do it.

-I prefer you don't use prep time prior to cross-x

Any questions - just ask! Looking forward to a good round :)

ex PF debater for Harker. anything goes — just don't be obnoxious

I have been a coach and judge since 2008. I have judged at numerous circuit tournaments. While my strengths are on the speech side, I have been judging LD and PF since 2008, and am familiar with both traditional and contemporary formatting of cases. Basically, I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments, with solid warrants. I do my best to come into round tabula rasa, and do not consider either side "burdened" with a particular case that they need to make. I have no issues with speed, as long as I can flow; if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that.

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

Speak clearly and make your points clear. Since I can't ask clarifying questions, I won't give credit if I don't understand the logics of the argument. 

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

i do deb8

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

-Please state your contentions very clearly and at a conversational speed.

-Explain why your argument is more compelling than your opponent’s. Persuade me please.

-Please stay organized so that you can be brief, clear and persuade better.

-Please keep the cross-fire lively and professional.

-Have real evidence, please do not make up -- your peers in that room are knowledgeable.

-I try my best to leave my beliefs at the door as it is a requirement.

Have Fun!

I was a Public Forum debater for Regis High School for 4 years. After graduating from Regis in 2014, the only exposure I have had to debate is judging at the annual Princeton Classic while I was a student there (graduated in June 2018). All of that is to say I have less ability to keep up with quick talkers today than I once did.

I privilege evidence-based claims and will look for argument weighing and synthesis, especially at the end of the round, in order to cast my ballot.

Good luck to all debaters!

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

LD PARADIGM FOR RIDGE

General things:

• Ignore my pf paradigm. My desire to not be annoying is more important to me than my personal views on debate, so where possible, I'll stick to LD community norms rather than impose my own pfey preferences on you. 
• I am an ex pfer who hasn't judged LD before.
• This means that I'm not going to be able to understand your top speed. I'm somewhere between a typical pfer and a typical lder in my ability to understand speed. In my experience, when debaters are spreading extemporaneous arguments I can usually understand them. The speed at which lders tend to read prewritten stuff and cards though is probably out of my league. Basically, you don't need to treat me like a parent judge but don't go at your top speed and I'll say clear as many times as necessary. Err on the side of slowness. SLOW DOWN ON TAGS.
• This also means that clear explanations are important. You are way more likely to win a round by picking one argument to collapse to and explaining its structure and implications for me very clearly than you are to win off a bunch of blippy extensions.
• Do weighing and explicit argument comparison for me. Write my ballot. Otherwise, I'm going to have to do the argument comparison myself and since I'm not experienced with LD you probably won't like the results.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES

• A vanilla plan, counterplan, DA debate is probably the style of argument that I'm most comfortable with, so larp to your heart's content. I'm more than happy to vote for other arguments but these are going to be the easiest arguments for me to evaluate.
• I think condo bad is probably true but my preference for avoiding intervention means I'm willing to let this debate unfold on its own.
• Slow down for plan texts.
• In pf, I think most politics DAs are stupid so I'm probably going to find politics DAs stupid in LD too. My threshold for treating responses to these DAs as terminal defense is probably going to be really low. 
• Oddly enough, the type of argument that I'm second most comfortable evaluating is theory and T. IGNORE MY PF PARADIGM, the pf community is way different and thus the way I would evaluate theory in a pf round is really different. 
• Types of theory that I don't like: frivolous theory to pick up a round against a less experienced opponent, random spikes which didn't have clear implications when they were first read.
• I really like disclosure, I'll be receptive to disclosure theory unless its against a clearly way less experienced opponent.
• SLOW DOWN ON STANDARDS AND INTERPS
• You need to clearly check for abuse in cross.
• I default drop the argument and reasonability, but these are just defaults, not preferences. 
• On topicality, I default drop the argument as well.
• I'm willing to vote off an RVI especially if I think the initial shell was stupid. Just be very clear with your abuse story, tell me what you could have done had you not been forced to waste time on theory. 
• Framework: I have a decent understanding of super vanilla philosophy like Kant, Rawls, etc. Denser philosophy might be tougher for me, so just slow down and be clear with your explanations. Apply the framework to your arguments for me, don't make me try and do that myself.
• Kritikal stuff: Most post fiat Ks should be fine for me to handle. I'll vote for a pre fiat K if it's explained clearly to me, but I won't be super familiar with this type of argument. 
• I'm vaguely familiar with some popular authors like Baudrillard and Wilderson, but I haven't really had experience with them in a debate context so clear explanations are important. Simpler things like security Ks should be fine for me. I'm probably never going to understand Deleuze so just don't even bother.
• Probably the most important thing when running something kritikal is a clear explanation of any ROTB arguments. Tell me what decision I'm making and why. 
• My only other personal preference is that I'd really prefer it if your alt was more developed than "reject the aff". If that's your alt, you need to be very clear about why rejecting the aff matters and why I'm voting for the K. 
• I default theory before K.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 
• Don't wear fedoras.

PF PARADIGM

Short Version:

• I'm a flow judge
• If it's not in summary I'm not voting on it
• You are more likely to win if you collapse to a single well warranted argument than if you try to win off a bunch of blippy extensions
• Weigh your arguments with explicit comparisons and warrants that are more developed than "lives are the most important".

Long Version:

Random things:

• I did PF for 3 years on the circuit and would like to think I was fairly decent. I currently dabble in NPDA parli so I have some experience with more progressive arguments.
• I can handle speed except for the fastest spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast or not enunciating.
• If you're funny I'll like you
• It's almost 2k17 people, match your belts with your shoes, don't wear fedoras, and can we PLEASE stop with the black shirts. This isn't a voting issue for me, just a personal plea.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 

Interventionism:

• I am very tab in most cases. I am willing to evaluate any argument and will generally buy what you say until told otherwise. The burden is on your opponent to respond to your arguments. That said, if an argument blatantly has no logical flow, I won't evaluate it.
• I am very not tab when it comes to evidence. If I am familiar with the card you're reading and I think you're misrepresenting it, I will call for it and be very unhappy. 
• If you are inconsistent about what your evidence says, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• If your opponents tell me to call for your evidence, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• I am very interventionist when it comes to theory. I will explain this more later. 

Round Flow:

Case:

• Please make sure your framework is actually doing something in the round and is warranted. Please number and structure things.

Rebuttal:

• Logic is way more important than reading me a bunch of cards. Explain how your arguments are interacting with your opponent's case. If you're reading a card, it should serve a purpose like providing empirical evidence of something you've argued will logically happen.
• If you are doing something weird or are reading overviews that you want to be flowed in a specific place, please do give me an off time roadmap
• I really like overviews when they're done well. I like good terminal defense and case turns to be labeled as such and read as an overview.
• I really like it when you give me and overview that lays out a weighing mechanism that you'll use throughout the round, as long as the weighing mechanism is well warranted. 
• If you like reading very offensive, borderline disadvantage style overviews, be careful. I think this is ok in first rebuttal, but not ok in second rebuttal because it abuses the fact that first speaking team has a ton to cover already in summary with way less prep time.
• Weighing. Do it. This is more than just "lives are the more important than anything else" and "our number is bigger than their number". Give me susbstantial reasons why one type of impact matters more than the other.
• Please label turns as such or I will not evaluate them as offense.
• Please don't label defensive arguments as turns, or I will be annoyed and dock speaker points.

Summary: 

• I like summaries that are structured around voters. These should ideally then carry over into final focus.
• Please please please collapse in summary, don't try and extend every argument.
• Don't extend through ink.  
• I like overviews in summary, preferably the same ones that were in rebuttal though you can and should drop the ones that aren't relevant to your current strat. 
• Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not. Both summaries have an obligation to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

Crossx

• I will write down things that I think might be important to the round that happen in cross, but I won't treat them as part of the flow. If you want me to vote off of something that happened in cross, you need to extend it into a speech.
• Don't be mean or overly aggressive. Let your opponent speak. Your speaks will not be pretty otherwise.

Final Focus

• Give me very specific voters that were brought up in summary. These should provide the structure of your speech. Do not try and address every argument in the round. Instead, explain how the specific voter you've picked interacts with the big issues in the round and why it wins you the round. Weighing is crucial.
• Voters should be more specific than just contention tags.  
• Second FF needs to extend defense on the voters read in first FF. 
• First FF should also extend defense on the voters brought up in second summary. If second summary didn't specify voters and instead just kind of rambled on about the round, I'm more lenient about this and you don't have to worry as much about extending defense. 

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.  

Theory:(this section is really long and probably irrelevant to most rounds, so ignore it unless you're planning on running theory. tl dr, make reasonable, well warranted arguments and don't be annoying)

• I think theory is a very important and useful tool to decide how debate should work given that the rules for PF are pretty minimalist and norms are changing all the time. 
• I don't think theory is new to PF. What people in PF call framework is more often than not an argument about topicality or how the round should work. The teams that ran these arguments the most successully often used theoretical justifications to warrant their arguments.
• That said, I reallly DO NOT like theory as it is currently used sometimes in other formats of debate: as a strategy to win rounds, especially against less experienced opponents who might not be as familiar with norms regarding theory.
• Theory should never be your strat. You should go into the round with a legitimate way to win and then run theory if there is a legitimate need for it to check abuse or clarify something in a round.
• Given those beliefs, here's how I think theory should function.
• You don't need to have an explicit shell structure, but your theoretical arguments about what is or isn't acceptable should still be justified by a standard like predictability or equality of ground with a link to a voter like fairness or education even if you don't necessarily use all the jargon.
• When it comes to topicality, I tend to prefer arguments that go back to the resolution and focus on how the resolution would realistically be interpreted by an educated citizen. Weird squirrelly interps of the resolution that are justified because they are marignally more fair are not my favorite. 
• You need to very clearly check for abuse in crossfire.
• I am not tab when it comes to theory. If I think your interpretation is dumb, that your opponents meet your interpretation, or that you didn't actually check for the abuse, I will not vote on theory.
• I evaluate under reasonability. This is not a preference, this is what I will do. I think competing interps leads to a race to the bottom where people try and win rounds by reading marginally better interps than their opponents, which eventually kills any real chance of a substantive debate especially given the short speech times of PF.
• You need to make a very strong argument about severity of abuse to get me to buy drop the debater arguments. If I think your opponents are being intentionally abusive and understand what's happening, I'm more likely to buy these types of arguments. If they just seem confused and don't really get the theoretical implications of what they're running, I'll probably just drop the argument.
• Responses to theory don't necessarily need to follow some sort of structure, but if they do that's also cool. As with everything, just be logical and warrant your arguments. 
• I can be convinced to vote on an RVI, though I doubt this will ever come up in a PF round. 

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm for 2018 TOC

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:


To preface my paradigm, I have very limited LD judging experience. That said, you may want to strike me. If you are a brave soul and have decided not to strike me, or are considering preffing me more highly in the pool, here are what I expect to be my judging preferences as a new LD judge:

• NO SPREADING. I don’t have problems with it on principle. I just won’t understand you. If you are going too fast (spreading or not), I will simply stop flowing.
• If you are debating in front of me, I might not understand the nuances of the more complex frameworks. If you decide you don’t care and read a complicated framework in front of me, you should be using cross-x and your later speeches to make it as clear as possible for me. If I can’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.
• As someone who has more public forum and congressional debate judging experience, I appreciate good public speaking skills and a strong sense of ethos in round. I will reward these qualities with higher speaker points.
• Please be respectful. There is a big difference between being funny in round, and being rude/hostile. Debate is an educational activity, which requires a level of respect between competitors.
• Finally, to reiterate- I AM AN INEXPERIENCED LD JUDGE. Do not run your Ks, Plans, Counterplans, Disads, T-interps, or run theory arguments in front of me. I will not know how to evaluate these types of arguments. I will probably just be confused.

I guess in general I’ll say the following: You can think of me as an extremely ‘lay” judge. If I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

I'm a former PF and college debater. ask before the round if you have any questions.

•analysis > evidence. not everything needs to be carded. I give higher speaks for solid analytical responses that show conceptual understanding of the topic. I rarely call for evidence.

•arguments that work in the real world preferred over gimmicky arguments (e.g. long, relatively implausible link chains to huge impacts).

•for virtual debate: set up a way to share evidence with the other team before the round.

•style: I prefer depth over breadth i.e. choose your 1 to 3 best responses rather than listing a bunch without explanation and a clear link chain.

•speed: I can flow whatever speed you go at, but like I said, I prefer depth over breadth. This means you should default to slower unless you feel its critical for your speech cover a lot.

•cross: I don't pay close attention to cross. Say it in a speech if it's important.

•theory/progressive debate: I don't like theory and I rarely vote on it. (One type of theory I do like is economic theory.)

I am a traditional judge. Please don't include LD jargon in your cases. I am a Public Forum purist. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. Since this is real world debate, at the end of the round I decide what kind of world I want to live in - pro or con. Paint the picture for me. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind.

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

I would like you to be courteous to each other. The team with the better constructed argument and clearer communication will be the winner. Please use a moderate speed to deliver your arguments. Furthermore, please use discretion when calling for cards and please have cards ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively against you.

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Lay judge who votes on quality and weighing of arguments.

Don't go tech, but I can deal with complex arguments if explained well.

Be polite to you opponents. Snide or disparaging remarks are not appreciated. Debating is more than arguing.

I will call cards myself if something sounds wrong. If you deliberately misuse evidence, it will undermine your credibility overall with me in the round.

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

I started judging PF in 2016. Prior to that I judged middle school parli for 5 years.

I was a policy debater in high school and college 30 years ago, so I am comfortable flowing, can deal with real speed etc. For context, I have never heard a PF debater spread faster than I can flow. Ha! However, I am not deep on any on any technical aspects of PF---still learning :-)

Some pointers on me:

1.) Please signpost. I like to flow so I am annoyed when you do not signpost.

2.) I like evidence so I will sometimes ask to see it after the round. Don't over-represent what it says as that undermines your credibility. However, this does not mean that I don't value analysis. The best strategy involves excellent analysis backed by strong evidence.

3.) No new arguments in Final Focus.

4.) As I am a civilian judge, you should assume I know very little about the topic, i.e. what a college educated adult would know from 10 minutes of NYT reading per day. The only exception to this is business/technology as I work at a tech company on the business side. You should assume I am deep on those issues.

5.) I am lazy. I won't do anything that you don't instruct me to do. If you assume that I will connect things without you explicitly saying so, you do so at your peril.

6.) Humor is important. You get bonus points for having a sense of humor. I am kind so it counts even if you just try to have a sense of humor and aren't actually funny :-)

On a personal note, debate is the only thing I learned in high school that I have used at work every day for the past 25+ years. So great to see all of you competing!

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

I am a parent judge. Judged since 2016.

I value logic and coherence. Apply empirical evidence in your arguments.

I prefer a small number of clear, well-articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspect.

Don't speed, you may lose me.

Be nice in the crossfire.

I debated PF for 4 years in high school and now debate in college

Please weigh and warrant why your weighing mechanism is the right one; one argument that is weighed and warranted well is more persuasive than a series of many blipping args; warrant your evidence and don’t just read it off; anything that’s important from crossfire should be in a speech; things in FF should be in summary