If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

I will judge based the clarity of your argument, your ability to speak to your audience, and how you outline and structure your argument throughout the debate. The last point is most crucial, as it will help guide me through your way of thinking and tell me why I should be persuaded. This is also aided by specific compelling evidence. Be sure to use your time wisely; I will not regard new arguments made during final statements. 

I began coaching in a very small school in rural Idaho in 2013. I have since taken over a program, in a larger district, with a more robust program in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy debate styles. I prefer a clear arguments, and will do my best to keep any personal bias out of the debate.

Public Forum: Prefer a few, in depth, detailed arguments over superficial arguments. Avoid a ton of theory and debate jargon. I like to flow easily-please use a roadmap and signpost.

Lincoln Douglas: Our state is relatively traditional, but that is not to say I won't hear out something a bit more progressive. I appreciate the V/C clash, especially when it is backed up with your contentions and evidence. I don't often have an opportunity to hear well developed theory and kritiks. Be be sure to slow it down and make sure I can understand the concept you are putting forward.

Policy: Again, I need to be able to follow the argument, and to that end, I'm not a fan of speed so fast I can't even understand the speaker. I will most likely vote on the stock issues - if you are going to run a K, make sure you slow it down, and make sure I'm getting it.

I am a parent judge. I have judged at a few local tournaments, but none on the national circuit.

Speed: Please refrain from speaking fast. Conversational pace is good.

Presentation: I value effective communication skills. What this means is that I don't want you just talking to your computer during speeches. Talk to me.

Civility: Please be civil during crossfire and during speeches.

Progressive arguments: I will most likely not evaluate these arguments. Remain topical.

How to win my ballot: Explain to me why I should value your arguments above your opponents. Clearly go through the logic of your arguments and explain why you are winning on specific issues.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

I debated throughout high school, with a main focus on public forum. I am now an assistant debate coach in Utah. My decision will come off the flow, and I will vote for pretty much anything that is well warranted, as long as it falls within the confines of your event.

Things I’d Like to See:

1. Thoughtful responses. Please do not read off a novel of evidence, expecting me to automatically buy your claims. Use evidence as a supplement to actual argumentation.

2. Clear links. This relates to 1. If you have obscure evidence claiming a link, with no logic to back it up, I likely won’t buy or weigh it.

3. Impacts. Please weigh the impacts of each argument, and how your impacts are preferred. If you have frivolous arguments with no impacts, I likely won’t buy them.

4. Tell me who won. Use clear voters and give me a strong summary. Additionally, my decision is easier when you give line-by-line.

5. Smile every once in a while!

Things Not to Do:

1. Waste time. If you have sufficiently countered a point, or if a point holds little weight, please do not spend an entire rebuttal on it.

2. Spend entire speeches staring at a computer screen. While I weigh substance of the debate first, speaking ability/confidence/knowledge of the topic can give an advantage in determining close rounds.

3. Be disrespectful/patronizing towards opponents.

If you see me outside the round, I will be happy to provide feedback. Feel free to ask me more questions before the round, and any you might have after as well. Good luck, and have fun!

PF/LD: (LD you can ignore the stuff about framework)

I have no preferences on speed or aggressiveness; debate however you best perform. If you present a framework, I expect that you'll use it. If neither team presents a framework I will default to cost-benefit analysis.

I don't flow cross. If a question is asked as cross ends, opponent may answer, but keep response as brief as possible.

Five second grace period to finish your speech.

You don't need to use prep time if you're just looking at cards, however, if you don't use prep time, don't prep for your speech.

I expect you to time yourselves. I will not time you.

Weigh your impacts, yo.

Summary:
I'm a policy/progressive LD judge. That basically tells you everything you need to know. They/them pronouns please.
Overall paradigm:
Run whatever you want at whatever speed pleases you. I am happy to vote on any arguments that you win. This means I will vote on theory, kritiks, DA's, CP's, etc. I consider myself a tabula rasa judge and will not come in with any biases as towards the arguments the debate should be about. I VOTE OFF OF FLOW 99/100 TIMES (the 1/100 time is when you say something incredibly derogatory towards a marginalized community).
Speaker point range:
I usually give between 25-30, with 27 being average and anything below a 25 meaning that the speaker has made a huge mistake. I basically only give speaker points based on your strategy, so don't feel like you need to be a good speaker to be ranked high.
Speed:
Go as fast as you would like, given you slow down when I need to write down taglines. If your opponent doesn't like speed, be courteous and slow down if they yell clear.
Disclosure
Despite what anyone will tell me, I will always be a strong proponent of disclosing. I feel that without disclosure, I am not doing my duty as a judge and am forcing a time deficit that hinders the improvement of the debaters I am judging. I will disclose my decision with rationale, give brief critiques, and then be willing to answer any questions from any debaters.

PF Specific Paradigm I've judged this event extensively, including TOC bid and national qualifying rounds. As with CX and LD, I am totally fine with any arguments you run (yes, even "policy" arg's like theory and K's) provided you run them correctly. My only requirement is you HAVE to extend any arguments you go for in the FF in the summary speech. If I cannot see the argument on the summary flow, I do not count it.

PF preferences: 

1. No spreading. I will flow the round. If I can't understand or miss something, I can't evaluate it. 

2.  I'm a lawyer, so please make your arguments logical and provide strong evidence.

3. If you're speaking first, I do not require that you extend defense in your summary. However, second summary needs to extend defense. 

4. Both teams should weigh the debate. 

5. Please keep crossfires civil. 

6. Make all of your link stories clear and show how they lead to your impacts. If the link chain doesn't make sense, I won't evaluate the impact.

7. I won't evaluate arguments that are dropped. You don't need to respond to a dropped argument or extend any responses on this.

8. It shouldn't take you more than a minute to find a card. 

9. Unless it's critical for the debate, keep theory out. Your arguments should be about the topic itself. 

I debated PF from 2006 - 2010. Many judging related questions can be answered by asking yourself how you would perceive the debate/your actions if you were in the judges position.This essentially means making logical arguments and having good-hearted fun.

More specifically, following these criteria will help you win the debate:

>>Signpost as you move through the speech.

>>Be clear in telling me what I should be voting on. I only vote on what is said in the debate, I don’t make inferences or links, so it’s up to you to make all parts of the argument so that it’s on the flow.

>>I vote on what’s on the flow, so help me keep my flow organized by making clear references.

>>State a clear impact analysis and be specific on why you outweigh

>>If there is a FW debate, make sure it is substantive. Don’t just re-state your FW, explain why I should prefer your FW and why you win under it. There is no shame in dropping the FW debate if it is a wash. Agreeing on one FW doesn’t mean you lose, I will just be judging both teams under the same FW, so be clear on why you still win under what was originally your opponents FW.

>>I do not vote on cross-examination

>>During cross-examinations there is no need to always ask “can I ask you a question” I prefer cx to be more informal. That also means you can sit or stand

>>Speed is fine but I need clarity and signposting

>>All your arguments need clear warrants

>>I may ask for evidence if it becomes a central issue in the debate

>>When you walk into the room try to write your name/school and corresponding speeches on the board and after the coin-flip your side.

I am a traditional PFer. I did PF all four year in high school here in utah and in california. Morals will not play a key in my decision process as it is part of LD not PF. I can understand speed but i prefer that you do not spew as it is hard to understand on all sides. Key things that i look for in rounds is strength of case, how it was defended, and if your evidence lines up with the point you are making. At the end of the day your are the debater so convince me that your case should win and the opponents shouldnt. Also be polite in your cross ex and dont talk over your opponents.

I have been a coach in Idaho since 2013 with students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate. In general I prefer clear articulation, solid logic, and in depth analysis. I will add style specific details below.

Public Forum

I believe that public forum should remain the most accessible format of debate and should strive to avoid over reliance on Debate Theory or jargon. I prefer a few in depth and detailed arguments over a larger quantity of superficial arguments. Final Focus should include key voters on both sides.

Lincoln Douglas

I am on the progressive side of traditional for LD debate. I believe the value debate is the key to Lincoln Douglas debate and expect clash on the value level as well as the argument level. I like the inclusion of philosophical arguments and may vote only on philosophy if it is warranted. I enjoy definition and theory debate but you'll have to work very hard to get me to vote on a K.

Policy

I am a traditionalist in Policy debate. I vote almost exclusively on the stock issues, I believe that the Affirmative must sufficiently address each of the major stock issues and have never voted on a kritical Aff. I believe T is a voter, but that the default assumption is that the Aff is topical. I don't like topical CP's and you will have to work pretty hard to get me to vote on a K. I default to Condo Bad so the neg will need to justify any conditional positions. I am not a fan of high speed "spreading" or any rate of speed which inhibits clarity of arguments or speech. I want to be able to flow the warrants and links as well as taglines and impacts.

Public Forum:

I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.

Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.

In high school I debated in PF and dabbled briefly in LD. I currently study Political Science and will be familiar with many political theories, am able to distinguish good evidence from bad evidence (and evidence IS important), and will ultimately walk into the round as the blank slate you deserve. Convince me.

Be Nice.

Dress nicely and conduct yourself professionally- I will reflect this in your speaking points.

You can talk fast (I will keep up) but if you're planning to spread, you're probably supposed to be in Policy.

I am here to judge your round, not monitor it. Monitor yourselves, play by the rules, and have a fair debate. I will not intercede in your round. If there is foul play/cheating/intolerable behavior you will lose.

I will keep a detailed flow chart of everything you say, as well as Crossfire, and will carry it through the flow unless your opponents were the last ones to speak to your point. Don't feel like you have to repeat everything that has been said in every subsequent speech. With that said, one-liners that summarize critical arguments should be brought up in the summary.

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

Experience:

4 years of local/national LD+congress

2nd year of college policy at the University of Wyoming

Put me on the chain: calvin.gilmer@gmail.com

I’ll flow any arguments you make as long as:

1. They’re not disrespectful/problematic/dehumanizing. Please make the debate space one that’s welcome to everyone.

2. They’re structured in some way (warrants, links, impacts).

I enjoy nontraditional/kritikal debate so feel free to utilize it. I am not as deep in the lit as I'd like to be for the majority of K's, so tailor your speeches accordingly. Make sure that you clearly link whatever argument you’re making to your opponent’s position.

Condo is neither good or bad in and of itself, so debate it! I haven't voted on condo bad in the past but that doesn't mean I won't in future rounds given the affirmative can prove that, in the context of the round, the negative has done something terrible. I believe judge kick is a thing, but I won't kick the CP for you if the 2nr doesn't tell me I can/should.

Speak clear enough that I can flow. If I’m flowing you’re good (I know these instructions are hard with online debate, so if there's any major issues with my hearing of the round/arguments I'll speak up. The vast majority of the time it seems like people are 100% fine.)

Speaker points: perform well and you'll get good speaks. If you get higher than a 29 I considered your performance excellent and was impressed.

Things that will definitely tank your speaks:

- Furthering oppression in the debate space (sexism, racism, homophobia...)

- Being condescending to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being condescending

Please don’t behave in an unkind matter…

If you have any questions email me!

Have fun and debate smart!

I have been judging debate for the last 10 years. I like straight up policy debate - I consider myself a "policy maker" type judge. I do NOT understand kritiks and do not recommend you run them. I do vote on topicality if there is actual abuse in the round, and I do not mind if it is run strategically by the negative. I do not mind speed through the warrants of your cards, however slow down on your tag lines because I do flow your debate and judge off of my flows. My philosophy is that constructive speeches and cross examinations are for the teams to share evidence. Rebuttal speeches are for you to make sure I understood what arguments have come through and win your side the round. Make sure you impact calc out the round for me in your final rebuttal speeches and give me voters. Most of the time I followed the round, however make sure I did not miss something you find an important voting point. I do not time flashing as long as it is reasonable - do not stall during flashing in order for your partner to prep.

I am a new LD parent judge, very traditional so fancy tricks like running Ks, Ts or theory or obscure LD jargons may not work for me to win my vote.

I will pick up the one who clearly explains the implications, standards, evidence, framework and especially the crystallizations which convince me. Please don't spread and please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since I am not used to the LD debate yet.

I prefer you disclosing your case to me or emailing me your case before the debate as reference in case I need that to follow you during the debate.

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
Please explain your evidence in the debate so I may consider and award you points accordingly

Be nice and show respect to your opponent.

3 years of CX at Bingham High School

3 years of CX at the University of Wyoming

Yes, add me to the email chain/contact: yumasie.hellebuick@gmail.com

I do not presume the aff, neg, or what debate should be. Debate is anything you want it to be, you just have to defend and give reasons why I should think debate should be understood that way instead of the other teams interpretation. I flow every speech, including cross-examination.

CX -

Topicality: I vote on competing interpretations, but also can vote on why I shouldn't evaluate it. Prove in-round abuse and why I should prefer your interpretation of the topic. No plan text? That's fine-just defend the lack there-of or why you don't have to defend those. The more nebulous your cross-ex responses are, the more likely I am to vote against you. Explain to me what voting aff means. What does voting aff mean for you, the debate community, or society writ large?

Theory: I vote on dropped theory arguments with warranted impacts. Like topicality, I would like for you to slow down and prefer depth > breadth.

Kritiks: I vote on these if there is a well articulated link to the aff and the implications that occur from so. While i've read a plethora of books, I like in-depth articulation than jargon. Impact claims should be more than "root cause of violence" and there should be some explanation of the impact in terms of the aff. I don't think you need an alternative, but if you are going for one please explain it.

Counterplan: I vote on these and assume all are competitive unless said otherwise.

Disadvantages: I vote on these when there is an explicit judge direction of why I should evaluate your impact claims first and a link.

Judge Direction: Making my decision easier through impact comparison, what is a prior evaluation, etc are all things I love. What did the other team handle so poorly they should lose the debate? I'm generous with speaker points. Public speaking is a learned skill, and should be awarded. 

Hello everyone. I am looking forward to judging you all at this tournament. A bit about me and my judging style. 

I competed in Speech and Debate for 4 years in high school and 4 years in college at Boise State University. I have coached high school speech and debate for the last 4 years and am now entering my 13th year with the activity. 

A bit about my judging. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if you are unsure. 

I bring blank pieces of paper into the round. I will not intervene or vote on something that is not said in the round. I believe the debate space is yours to use how you want to and I will judge based on what you say and how you articulate your points. If you don't tell me where you want me to vote, then chances are I may vote somewhere you don't want me to. Clear sign posting is good. 

Speed: Totally fine. You won't spread me out of the round. I can follow any speed. 

Theory/T/K's: All are fine. I will follow any argument and am happy to vote on any of them. Remember, blank piece of paper. That being said, I have a slightly higher threshold for T's. I think K's need to have good literature to back them up. 

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

I expect clarity of speech and a well organized presentation. Support your arguments with evidence. Tell me your voters and convince me that you won the round. I like sign posting and structure. I'm fine with speed, but remember that this is PF and you are expected to present your information in such a way that anyone can understand it.

Respect for your opponent is paramount. Clash is fine, rudeness isn't. I don't plan to do the work for you and have to draw conclusions, so stay on topic and don't limit your focus to one contention if you present more than one. I want you to support all of your contentions. If you only present one contention, make sure it is clearly defined and can stand on it's own. If you feel like you won the round, tell me that, convince me.

Have a great tournament :-)

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

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

PF

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

General things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Speak Well

-Play nice

-Framework

-Time yourselves

-Give voters

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

I have been a Speech and Debate coach since 2016 and have a background in teaching philosophy and critical theory.

LD:

Quick Prefs:

Stock anything: 2

Utils/LARP: 1

Ks: 1

Theory: 3

T: 3

Tricks: 4

Philosophy: 3

I am fine with spreading but you need to make sure that I can understand you. I'll tell you to clear if you're incomprehensible, but if I have to tell you to clear more than 3 times it's coming off your speaks.

I have a low threshold for extensions

I'm fine with flex prep. Flashing/e-mailing isn't prep; compiling your doc is prep.

I flow cross. I'm big on impacts and links. If you're not linking your Ks and dis-ads to the aff, I'm going to drop it.

I'm fine with Phil, but I haven't seen it much so some of it may be lost on me. Even though I'm fine with Phil, I'm not big on T. I don't like theory shells.

I won't vote on sexism/racism/oppression is good.

In PuFo, make sure you're weighing for me, especially in summary and final focus.

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

No spewing(speed talking)

Not a huge fan of kritiks or "K"s.

Topicality and evidence is HUGE. I dont want just your opinion.

Speak to me, dont read to me.

I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.

First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.

Specifics in judging:

Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.

Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination.  I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that. 

K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.

Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.

 Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.

Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score. 

Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.

Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.

All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!

I am the parent of a high school Public Forum debater.  I have been judging debates for 3 years now but I consider myself to be a lay judge.  I have judged PF, LD, Parli, and Congress at local tournaments, but this is the first time I will be judging at a circuit tournament.

What I DO Value:

* Well researched arguments backed by sound logic;

* Depth of Analysis

* Delivery that is clear, loud, and well paced (no overlapping of words);

* Quality of arguments over number of arguments;

* Signposting as needed throughout the debate.

What I DO NOT Value:

* Shallow arguments;

* Arguments unsupported by solid evidence;

* Garbled delivery;

* Frequent Interjections.  I realize that at times interjecting the speaker is necessary but interjecting for the sake of interjecting is disrespectful and also an impediment to the flow of debate.  Please use your judgement and only interject when absolutely necessary;

I realize that most debaters are more or less of equal caliber, highly motivated, and well prepared. Therefore, to stand out and win my ballot, you have to be clear, concise, and articulate. 

During the debate, I will not display any signs of approval or disapproval, or indicate in any manner whether I find your arguments convincing or not. I will not give comments or disclose after the round. Everything will be on my ballot.

Good Luck.  I hope you give me enough reasons to vote for you.

I graduated high school in 2012, and I debated both policy and public forum on the national circuit with College Prep in Oakland, CA. Been judging on and off since,

- I try not to ask for evidence after the round, but I will if i think it’s necesssry or if you ask me to. PF evidence standards are terrible and need to be improved, and if I read something that is obviously powertagged, I will not evaluate it.

- Speaking of evidence, make sure to explain the warrants in your ev when there is clash. “My card says 3%, yours says 2%” is not an argument. Neither is “but mine is newer!!!”.

- PF is getting more tech. I get that. I’m not mad at it. But if you speak fast for no reason and you sound like sh!t, your speaks will suffer. If you use debate words incorrectly, I’ll be mad.

- I give obvious clues about how I feel. If I’m frowning, I don’t like what you’re saying. If I’m not writing anything down that means I can’t understand you or I don’t care to notate what you are saying. There’s probably a reason for that. Don’t be surprised later on.

- Make sure you do some good crystallization & weighing in the final focus. Don’t go for everything and do some actual impact calc / comparison. I feel like a lot of PF debates these days have too many arguments in them for their own good. There just isn’t enough time in the speeches, and if I have to do weighing myself, you might find that I disagree with your unspoken impact calc. You’ll be a sad panda if that happens.

- don’t be a dbag. If you are, prefer humor over obvious personal attacks.

- I don’t have strict rules about new args in grand cross q or final snaq. They may or may not be evaluated, depending on how relevant to the debate I think they are or how obvious they are given previous args. 9/10 times they probably won’t. Explain why they should or shouldn’t be if you’re worried about that kind of thing.

- frontlining isn’t required. You should still probably do it.

- extending defense in the summary isn’t required. You should still probably do it.

- usually, the role of the ballot is pretty obvious, per the wording of the res. Most PF resolutions are worded to assume the adoption of some policy proposal by some actor. If you think it isn’t that way, debate it in round or ask about my (usually immutable) interp. If you’re reading critical args that require a different than obvious interpretation of the res / obvious role of ballot, I expect you to explain that in round.

- plz bring flow paper without lines and some extra pens. I forgot mine in the hotel room. V sorry. May or may not give you back your pen(s)

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Lay judge. 

I've been judging for four years. I have judged at NSDA nationals and several bid tournaments. I try to flow (but my son says that I suck at it)

Key strategies for winning my ballot:

- Use empirical evidence (data, examples, etc.)

- Framework is unnecessary.... But if you do run framework, use it throughout ALL your speeches

- Speak clearly. I don't like spreading

- I don't like progressive debates; keep it traditional

- Clash with your opponents, but be civil

- Use full cites for evidence (Name, Date, publication/source)

- I will only vote off of arguments in summary AND final focus

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

3 years of high school policy debate experience, was the 1N/2A most often until I started being double 2s. Flashing/emailing is not prep. I can probably follow anything, but slow down on tag lines especially if you want to make sure I write them down.

If you want me to clarify anything email me at wambolt.charleee@gmail.com.

Tag teaming is fine.

Things that raise speaker points: Being confident but also respectful, signposting clearly, being organized in your roadmaps, slowing down and being clear on tag lines, general kindness, not doing the things that hurt speaker points, etc. I won't go giving out 30s super easy, but I have no problem with 28s/29s.

Things that hurt speaker points: Laughing at the other team’s arguments, not being respectful, talking loud while the other team is giving one of their speeches, being unclear (especially on tag lines), etc. Also, any form of racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc language will dramatically lower your speaker points, and I am willing to give double losses in this case and really this case only.

I love T and Theory! It's weird, I know, but I just do. I love all arguments though, so just do what you want - honestly.

Please explain what the permutation looks like, don’t just say perm. Conditionality is a debate to be had.

On Kritiks: There is power in performance and other pathos-driven strategies. Honestly similar to T/Theory, I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that these are more real-world than anything when done well. But please don't perform just for the sake of performing, make sure it has a purpose. I've heard the stories about people standing on desks, burning papers, screaming in other people's faces, even wrecking a laptop or doing other things to be memorable-- this is not what I support. I'm talking about performances that could require some theory to defend, performances that redefine the rules of debate and open doors for new stories to be told and new messages to be shared- not ones that redefine the rules of basic human decency or put anyone in danger in any way (including yourself). I will still be expecting some form of voters or line by line or some reason to vote for you if you do a performance, I won't do work for you. Other Ks can win too, don't feel pressure to perform. Also, be prepared to explain any jargon that you use. I'm not a psychology major, and you probably aren't either, so don't expect these words to be as self-explanatory as your debate coach said they were or whatever.

selena zhang (she/her/hers)

current conflicts, affiliations, organizations: harker (ca), okemos (mi), fairview (co).

if you would like me to know about anything to make the round more accessible to you (gender pronouns, where to sit, coronavirus/virtual debating accommodations, trigger warnings, etc), i encourage you to talk to/email me beforehand.

logistics

hi! i'm selena--i debated policy in high school on the colorado circuit and at uc berkeley. i graduated from cal in 2020. i have been coaching harker for 3 years and judge upwards of 50 rounds per season between policy and LD.

email for email chains: firstnamelastname 17 @ gmail [substitute as necessary]

if you are pressed for time, read the bolded parts.

online debate

1. please go at about ~80% speed of what you would normally go at. i will say "clear" if your audio is muddled or cutting out.

2. please remember to record your speech locally and to check after every speech/cx that no one has dropped off the call. if internet issues do arise, i will only evaluate the recording and will not allow any redos.

3. i would prefer if you turn your camera on during the debate; however, i totally understand that this may not always be feasible [feel free to turn it off during prep, if you're away, or if you're waiting for RFD]

4. start rounds promptly and early if possible. this includes having the email chain ready, having the file downloaded and open, and being ready to give your speech.

general

- i will listen to whatever you choose to present, but tell me why you win.
- clarity over speed. i will very explicitly stop flowing if you are unclear.
- tech ≥ truth, regardless if you are running 1 off, 10+ off, or anything in between.
- open cx is fine and emailing/flashing does not count as prep, but keep both to a minimum. time yourselves and hold each other accountable.
- being assertive is fine; being rude is not. i trust you all to know the difference.

method

at the end of the debate, i holistically evaluate the round, with the strongest emphasis on the 2nr/2ar. i then work my way backwards and determine how well earlier speeches set up the final rebuttals. dropped arguments are not automatically true, but must be warranted. i will not intensely read cards unless if you tell me to or if i feel like it would help me understand the analysis done in your speeches.

this process is slightly different for LD and PF. the speech times for both activities do not allow for extensive argument development, so i tend to evaluate the earlier speeches with a little more weight than i would in policy. however, your 1ac underview/spikes should not be longer than your actual 1ac case.

thoughts on specific arguments

case: i love case debates. i am a huge fan of ones that have more than just impact defense in the block. case turns, author indicts, and recuts of the opponent's evidence are great to see in a round. extinction good and de-dev are valid arguments provided you explain it well. however, morally abhorrent arguments such as "racism/sexism/etc. good" are not valid.

counterplans: are generally good if they are well researched and have a thorough solvency advocate. i am not against any specific counterplans, but if you do choose to go for ones that are considered to be somewhat illegitimate and/or abusive, be ready to defend them.

disads: great. i especially like case specific ones that have a strong link chain. impact calculus is important.

kritiks: sure. i am relatively well-versed in some of the more common kritiks, but i am not very familiar with some of the hyper-specific k's on this year's topic. it would be in your best interest to explain and contextualize your k to me in relation to the affirmative. this could involve (but is not limited to) excavating a very specific link to the affirmative, showing how the thesis of your k highlights the truth of the 1ac, pulling out lines from the aff that link into your kritik, among others.

i have a high threshold for kritiks, so make sure you understand the literature behind the theory. alt solvency is important, but you do not necessarily need to win the alt in order to win the K. make sure that you can clearly communicate how your alternative would function if it were actualized. flesh out the link debate and the perm debate. provide a clear framework of how i should evaluate the round.

K affs/nontraditional affs: a lot of what was written above is applicable to here: i am fine with them. i would prefer that your aff is somewhat relevant to the topic, and unless you are able to clearly show me why you deserve to win with an untopical aff, i am more inclined to vote negative on these. understand your k aff from the inside out, and make sure you have good framework answers.

topicality (for policy affs): i genuinely love a good T debate, but i do have a high threshold for it. that just means i want to see it debated well. tell me why you win on T.

T-USFG and framework vs K affs: great arguments. i do not have any strong opinions on this argument, but i hope to see fleshed out impacts, contextualized answers as to why your model is good/why their model is bad both inside and outside the debate sphere.

theory: this description is for any type of policy-oriented theory argument, ie PICs bad/good, condo, ASPEC, etc. refer to the LD section below for my thoughts on "tricks" theory arguments.

since many people do not actively go for theory, i naturally have not judged many theory 2ar's. theory can be fine; however, i usually do not vote on it because the arguments and impacts are not fleshed out very well in most rounds. i find that i vote on theory if one side was at a clear and severe disadvantage coming into the round, and that the debater was able to explicitly contextualize this disadvantage.

ethics violations: (mis)disclosure and evidence fabrication can be voting issues, but i would hope that everyone appropriately discloses and correctly cuts evidence beforehand. if you would like to call an ethics violation, i will ask if you would be willing to stake the round on it. if you agree, i will evaluate the violation and grant wins and losses based on my decision. if you do not agree or would prefer to present the violation in a different manner (ie recutting the card), i will let the debate continue.

clipping: do not clip cards. i am comfortable dropping you on clipping, but i am generally reasonable if you stumble on a word or two. do not misrepresent what you read.

speaker points

my scale is relative to the tournament that i am judging at or the division of the event. other than that, my thoughts on speaker points do not differ much from everyone else’s, and i try to keep up with community norms. in general, i add points for clear speaking, well-developed arguments, and strategic argument choices, and i subtract them for the inverse of these qualities.

with the exceptions of CP/DA and other sensible combinations, a split 2nr will hurt your speaker points. saying "clear" either means your voice is muddled or that you are routinely messing up words or syllables that are critical to understanding your speech. i will say "clear" 2 times before i stop flowing.

judging LD

i judge LD quite extensively and have become very familiar with the style and format. most of what i wrote above is highly applicable to LD, especially at the circuit level. with my policy background, i have found that i am the best suited for LARP/K debates. however, please do what you do best: while adapting to your judge is important, i believe that a characteristic of good debaters is that they are able to win with their own style regardless of the person they are debating in front of. i like impacts, but i am also down to judge a good traditional/lay framework debate as well.

i am seeing an increasing number of tricks and troll arguments, so here is my stance on them: my threshold for answering these are generally low, so expect an uphill battle if you choose to go for frivolous theory, tricks, or RVIs in the rebuttal.

i normally do not judge that many phil/tricks debates, so if you insist on that strategy, please spend some time contextualizing and explaining your arguments as if i have never heard of it.

judging PF

in PF, i follow a very similar method in evaluating debates as i do for policy and LD. tell me why you win; write my ballot for me. i am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well-warranted. most of what i have defined above in regards to presentation are also applicable to public forum. keep your off-time road maps and formalities (asking to take the first question, for instance) to a minimum. i am more lenient on speaker points in pf than other pf judges and care more about your arguments instead of your actions.

paraphrasing cards equates to evidence fabrication -- have the whole card ready throughout the debate.

addendum

• engage with the other side's arguments and use your best judgement!

• i flow CX. flex prep is fine, but my decision will only be based on what is said during your designated speaking times.

• i understand that there will inevitably be disagreement no matter the decision, but i hope you can learn from the loss to win any of my future ballots. i can clearly tell the difference between asking questions with the intent of improving vs. saying snarky remarks/asking frivolous questions in an attempt to undermine my judging skill and character. if these decorum issues persist, i will end the discussion and ask you to hash out your further questions through email.

• if you ever need any clarification on RFDs on tabroom or what i said after the round, please feel free to reach out to me.

• i am generally fine with any of your personal preferences when it comes to debate, as long as your actions are not affecting anyone else's ability to engage with the round. i reserve the right to intervene in cases of bullying, harassment, or violence.