I graduated from Strath Haven (PA) in 2016, and I did two years of policy debate there. I just graduated from Hamilton College, Class of 2020. I majored in Chinese and Russian Studies and did two years of APDA (parliamentary debate).

My email is emmabelanger813@gmail.com - if there's an email chain, I want to be on it! Also feel free to email me with any questions you have, pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with pretty much anything in policy debate. I'm just looking to watch and flow a good debate, so please read arguments you're comfortable with and you understand. There's nothing worse than watching someone struggle to answer questions in CX because their coach wrote their overviews and they don't understand anything they're saying in their speeches.

Spreading is cool, just understand that I'll be trying to flow and if I can't catch what you're saying then obviously I can't flow it. I was used to speed in high school, but keep in mind that I'm not doing policy in college, so my ears might need to warm up to it. I would suggest starting slower and gradually reaching your full speed.

If you don't go to the line-by-line, I'll be incredibly annoyed. I don't know much about the topic so that's where you're going to win/lose the debate. Make sure you warrant your arguments, no tag-line extensions please.

I am likely very unfamiliar with the current topic, but as long as your aff/DA/K/CP/whatever is coherently put together and I can flow it, I shouldn't have any problem understanding it.

Topicality

In order for the neg to win on T, every level needs to be thoroughly explained and impacted. I don't want to hear "extend the voters for fairness and education" - that's not an extension. You need to contextualize the violation to the round and do a good job of extending your impacts, as well as answer every argument from the affirmative.

DAs

I think DAs are the most straightforward of arguments to make against an affirmative, and if you have good evidence and use it to your advantage, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go for the DA and win the round. Turns case args are your best friend in these debates. Aff - please make arguments in your block on every level of the DA if possible, it sets you up incredibly well out of the 2AC.

Kritiks

I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks in high school debate. If they're not too complicated, it's obviously fine, but I personally struggle to understand new theory in the span of a single debate round. If you're going to read Baudrillard or Foucault, you'd better understand what you're talking about and be able to explain it and contextualize it to the round. This doesn't mean don't read a K; I'm just saying that I want it to be explained and impacted reasonably well and in an understandable way. If Ks are your thing, read them.

CPs

I like them, just explain and contextualize them. Make sure your solvency advocate actually functions, and try to make your CP as specific to the aff as you can.

K Affs

I feel pretty much the same way about K Affs as I do about Ks, I need a lot of explanation and contextualization throughout the round before I am fully willing to sign my ballot for the aff. Also, please do your best to explain any technical terms you use, especially if you repeat them more than once or twice. I have a lot of experience debating against K affs, but I've only ever really read one, so I'm not that knowledgeable on the arguments you'll be making.

Theory

Honestly, I'm indifferent. If you're going to spread it, however, make sure you emphasize what you want me to flow or it'll be annoying.

I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.

Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.

I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

Updated January, 2018

TL;DR Former PFer, flow judge. Consistency through summary and FF, don't misconstrue evidence, time yourselves, and weigh please.

Background

Four years of PF at Nueva (graduated 2017). As with any human being, I have ideological biases, but in round I will try my best to be tabula rasa and to evaluate the round fairly.

Evidence/Cards

I’m fine if you ask for some cards, flash cards, or whatever. However, there are four things I really don’t like when people do. First, do not prep when people are finding cards. This is rude. Second, find cards in a timely manner. You should be able to provide cards with proper citations and bolded/highlighted parts in a manner that does not hold up the debate. This makes the round run smoother and is a debater's responsibility. Third, use proper citations with author and date at least (I tag cards by the author's last name; not a rule in any way, just something you might find helpful). These first three things will not influence my decision but will have an effect on speaks (although I'm open to theory on improper citations). Fourth, DO NOT MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE. In prelims I will not ask for cards after the round unless you ask me to call for cards, in which case I will call for all card you ask me to call for, or unless I strongly suspect a card is misconstrued. In outrounds, I will call for cards that are heavily contested or any cards that you ask me to call for or any cards I strongly suspect are misconstrued. If your evidence is misconstrued, it disappears from my flow. If it is misconstrued such that a reasonable person would believe it was intentionally manipulated to give a strategic advantage, I will drop you (although I've never had to do this before and hope I never will).

The implication of my prelim evidence policy is that when two teams throw contradictory stats at each other with no way to resolve the conflict, I don't know what to do (since I'm not going to call for prelim cards); this means that I won't feel comfortable enough to vote on the argument with unresolved evidence conflicts (unless the round is so messy that there is nowhere else to vote). Thus, if you want me to vote on such an argument, tell me to call for the cards.

I think paraphrasing is fine (I paraphrased when I debated), as long as you are not changing the meaning of the card.

Topicality and Framework

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Definitions

Honestly most definitions read in PF are unnecessary. I would advise only reading definitions if they're actually important. Also, I hate adjudicating definitional debates (you'll lose speaks if you make me do this).

Theory and Ks

I am open to these and will vote on them (if you use a shell, make sure you extend properly). However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do (if you really think there's something unfair going on in the round, but your opponents don't understand how a shell works--just ask them in crossfire--then you can just run paragraph theory). If it is clear you are just running the theory for an easy win, you will get 0 speaks (but still the win as long as you actually win the round). That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!

Weighing

Please do this. The only way you can guarantee a win in round is to write my ballot for me in late speeches; tell me why you are winning the most important argument and argue why that argument is the most important and you will win. Weigh your impacts. If you don’t, I will just have to pick one and one team will probably disagree with my decision.

I think there's a tendency in the debate community to say things like "weigh lives over everything else"--this is unjustified and is not sufficient weighing. If there's no weighing in the round, I default to the weirdest impact in the round--you won't be happy with this so just weigh.

Speed

I’ve never heard a PF debate that I can’t follow, but I definitely cannot follow fast policy speed. Just do what you normally do and I’ll drop my pen if you’re going too fast. Do be clear on tags and signpost though.

Offtime Roadmap

Do this if you want, but is your rebuttal really so extraordinarily difficult to follow that it desperately needs a roadmap? Unless you're doing something really crazy, it's probably not necessary in PF, but I won't dock you points for doing it unnecessarily.

Cross

I pay very little attention to crossfire--if you find this to be a big issue, please let me know before the round, and we can discuss. Otherwise, this means that anything that you want in the round has to be in speech. Be polite, and do not yell. Also, if you're confused about something please just ask in crossfire.

Also, time your own cross.

Extensions

Extending through ink is bad. If you try to extend through ink, I will consider the defense cold dropped. The other team only need bring up in later speeches that the response was dropped. Extending through ink in the 2nd FF is not cool at all. It will come out of your speaks and will NOT be evaluated.

Also, an extension consists of link, warrant, and impact. When you extend, tag and summarize your cards.

FF and Summary

Anything that is in the FF has to be in summary (the only exception to this is that 1st summary does not have to extend defense). Do not try to sneak in arguments during grand cross and extend them in FF; I will not evaluate them. This is especially true if you are the second speaking FF. If you are 2nd speaking FF teams that makes up new arguments or misconstrues evidence in the FF I will disregard everything new and trash your speaker points.

Note: If you are the first speaking team, you may extend a turn from rebuttal to FF as long as you phrase it as a competitive link that exactly cancels out your opponent's link. It will be evaluated accordingly as defense.

Collapse

Please please pick arguments to go for. Unless you are so far ahead that you have time to go for everything, going for everything in a half-decent way is far worse than collapsing on a couple of key arguments.

Prep

Don't steal prep. It will come out of your speaks. I really don't think it should take more than 15 seconds to get your stuff together and speak--if this seems unfair or there is a reason you can't do this, then let me know before the round, and we can discuss.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty generous with speaks. For me speaking ability is completely separate from the arguments in the debate. You can make good points and be a terrible speaker and I’ll pick you up but probably give you terrible speaks. If you want good speaks be polite, don't misconstrue evidence, and speak pretty. Speaker points are also where I will penalize you for things like going new in the 2.

Kicking Out

Kicking out of an argument requires that you read a piece of defense on it. This must be in summary and final focus (even if it is first summary).

Clarity

I will nod my head when something makes sense to me, and I'll also make a weird face if I don't understand what you are talking about. Hopefully this is helpful for making sure I understand your arguments.

Miscellaneous/Semantics

I don't appreciate it when 1st speaking teams don't flow their opponent's FF. I think one of the main reasons we debate is because it helps us learn, and having a full flow of the round is certainly more conducive to learning. I realize this part of my paradigm may not actually achieve its end (b/c you may just flow the speech so I don't deck your speaks and then throw it away afterwards), but it's probably better than you not flowing at all. I will doc half a speaker point if you don't do this.

I think it makes the round interesting when people ask weird crossfire questions like "what are you going for in summary?" (more like LD).

Yes you can time yourselves--I would prefer that.

Please come with your cases preflowed--that saves everyone time.

Know what your impact cards mean. If your card says "a one standard deviation in x increases the gini coefficient by 0.02," you better be able to explain what that means. Also, I don't understand what that means so you should explain that to me and compare it to other impacts.

I love humor. If I laugh you can have a 30.

I'm certainly open to discussing the reasons for my paradigm and even changing them if the discussion convinces me.

I default to util. I will buy any framework, but give me a reason to prefer.

I really enjoy discussion of methodology/study flaws. Bonus speaks for cool, mathematically insightful evidence indicts.

Questions

Ask any questions you have. If something is unclear I would rather you ask a question than do something that I said not to do in my paradigm. This policy on questions also holds after the round. If you disagree or don't understand my decision, please ask me questions. I'm happy to explain or discuss!

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

I used to write in-depth feedback on ballots, but I feel like nobody was reading them, so now I will try to give an in-depth oral critique with minimal or no written RFD on this website.

I did four years of high school Lincoln-Douglas, during which time I qualified for both CFL and SDA national tournaments and made it to the tenth round in the latter. I am currently debating in both NPDA and CEDA for NYU. I'm from a traditional circuit and thus am most experienced with framework debate, but I attended and succeeded in many national circuit tournaments and am perfectly able to follow progressive strategies.

I would hesitantly describe myself as a tab ras judge with idiosyncrasies, which I have attempted to explain in detail on this page. I wrote this paradigm mostly with LD in mind, but it's basically applicable to all debate events to the extent that I would be compelled to judge them.
I presume truth-testing unless you should decide to argue otherwise.

Flex prep: is encouraged.

Kritiks: I have evolved somewhat in my fondness for K debate. Increasingly I see a lot of very continental philosophy-type critics which use obfuscation and poor definitions to do linguistic sorcery. This is probably not the most helpful thing; I am open to critical methods which reject the paradigms of analytic reasoning, but they shouldn't be propped up by unclear definitions and intellectual dishonesty.

With that said, Time Cube is in a category of its own. I am a human being who enjoys fun, so I will be happy to judge meme cases in general. Run at your own risk, because I think they tend to collapse under real scrutiny for the aforementioned reasons.

Literature: My knowledge of the topic lit is very limited. Speak about it as though you were speaking to a layman, because you are.

Philosophy: I love philosophy and metaethics, and I am strongly preferential to a framework with a priori justifications.
With that said, I do not want to hear your pedantry about the difference between justice and morality! Furthermore, I tend to find arguments distinguishing governmental obligations from moral obligations very, very unconvincing (if the two are in conflict, it's very difficult for me to weigh government duty over moral duty, Thomas Hobbes can eat my shorts).
I love the meta-debate of epistemic modesty vs. confidence, and often use such considerations to decide close rounds. I tend to lean toward confidence when it's not mentioned, but I can easily be swung in favor of modesty if a debater says so.
Skep is a hard sell. You will have to blow my mind to persuade me to vote for you on skep, since I would assume that skep makes the vote arbitrary...

Speaker points: I judge speaks predominantly based on style and rhetoric. Do not confuse this for the traditional LD paradigm which demands that every debater talk like William Jennings Bryan or something like that. You can be fast and smart without sacrificing the beautiful rhetorical flourishes that make debate fun. Humor and entertainment goes a long way toward achieving this end.
I would rather be a point fairy than a miser.

Spreading: Creates a high barrier to entry for national circuit debate, but I am generally in favor because it allows for more educational and enjoyable rounds. It is in bad form to spread against debaters you know cannot handle spreading.

Timing: I can time if you want me to. If you do not ask me to, I will not.

Topicality: Not my favorite, but I presume that it is a voter as a procedural rule unless this assumption is challenged on the flow.

Theory: I don't object to theory on principle, but I think the proliferation of frivolous theory in Lincoln-Douglas is a negative impact on education and fun. There are certainly times when it's justified or necessary, but only insofar as the opponent has skewed the debate so drastically that running theory is the only viable way to win.
I tend to be pretty hostile to research burden arguments. Vro, you don't have to know every minute detail of whatever obscure advocacy or framework they're running, as long as they make it clear in constructive and cross-ex--even if it's new to you, there's always a kritikal response or counterplan. I am afraid that the ubiquity of research burden arguments will deter debaters from gaining esoteric knowledge in the peripheries of the topic, thereby sacrificing educational value for fairness. Basically, I'd rather see you run Mao K against an unfamiliar advocacy than research burden theory.

TLDR: I'm ok with speed and pretty much everything else.

I’m a senior at Fordham University where I compete on the American/British Parliamentary circuits.

Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Don’t sacrifice clarity to try to get more on the flow.

Please signpost as much as reasonably possible.

Try to avoid theory arguments, as I think they bog down the debate given your time constraints. I will only vote on theory if I have no doubts that in-round abuse has occurred. I would much rather adjudicate based on the substance on the flow.

Clash and weighing are essential. This means not just extending your arguments, but telling me why they specifically defeat that of your opponents.

First of all, I am not the debate coach at Berkeley.  Sorry for the dissapointment :( (for those of you that don't get that, look up the name of the Berk debate coach).  This paradigm is going to be a little disorganized because my thoughts on debate are a little disorganized, but it should still be helpful.

Background/general stuff:  I debated for 3 years of Nat Circuit Policy in High School, and I'm currently doing APDA Parli at Tufts.  I had plenty of experience with speed, progressive debate, and all that stuff.  I was also a 2A in high school, so keep that in mind. Overall, I'd consider myself to be a pretty Tabs judge, although I do have some biases (which I try to supress) that I'll talk about a little below.  Fair warning: I don't have much experience with this year's topic, so try to keep the topic-specific jargon to a minimum: or at least explain it to me.  Although I'm fine with speed, try to preserve clarity.  You get a lot more points down on the flow if you speak 20% slower and 50% clearer. I will default to a policymaker framework unless someone tells me different.

Try to be courteous in your rounds.  It'll reflect in your speaker points, and being rude just makes debate a worse experience for everyone.

As a general rule, I prefer tech over truth, and I'd rather hear an overused arguement done well than some fancy new K that you obviously don't understand.  However, if you have some obscure K that you fully understand, feel free to use it! Additionally, impact calc should be in every speech after the 1NC.  

DA's: Obviously these are a good thing to use.  You should have specific links, or barring that, you should be able to contextualize your generic link in the context of the aff in the neg block.  Try to have a clear brink and IL chain in your DA's, the neg block should have an overview that explains why it turns case.  DA's are better when paired with Counterplans, however I'm totally down with you taking DA and case into the 2NR.  Case specific DA's are awesome, although I understand they're a high research burden.

Case:  I think case debate is incredibly undervalued in squo policy.  Having a bunch of case defense makes it 100x harder for the aff to outweigh your K/DA, and in my opinion is the most fun part of the debate.  

CP's: Overall Counterplans are a good thing, provided they're mutually exclusive.  I'm fine with Actor counterplans, I <3 advantage counterplans, and some process stuff like XO is good (although the aff can certainly make theory args against it).  I'm a not a fan of consult/condition/delay counterplans, but it's up to the aff to prove to me that they're not theoretically legit, but neg be warned that I am more sympathetic to aff theory args on those types of CP's.

Kritiks: I'm sure this is the only part most of you care about anyways.  Kritiks on the negare good things to run, and in high school I primarily ran Security (and Cap of course), and I also dabbled in Anthro, Baud, and DnG.  I'm not familiar with some of the more obscure authors like Lacan and Bateilles, and tbh I'm not even super familiar with DnG.  If you're running a Kritik, pass the grandmother test.  Don't rely on me to be a philosophy expert (hint: I'm not) who already understands your hyper-dense jargon.  Clear and concise 2NC overviews are absolutely essential to expertly running a K, and contextualizing your link to the 1AC (whether it be to the plan or the 1AC performance) is critical.  I want an explanation of what your alt does, what my ballot means, and why I should be ignoring the traditional policy framework.  Although I love K's, there are few things more painful than a bad K round, so please try to understand the literature before running a K.

I am not as big a fan of K affs, although I will listen to them.  I'm disgusted how many judges nowadays won't even listen to Framework as an arguement, and am definitely sympathetic to neg framework claims.  However, running framework isn't an instant win for neg vs. K aff, so it is still entirely possible to win with a K aff, especially if it pertains to the resolution (the farther away from the rez it is the more symapthetic I'll be towards neg FW claims).  However, I will hold the aff to a high threshold for explaining to me just exactly what your aff and 1AC performance does.

Performance debate: I know this is contrary to the direction debate is headed, but I'm not a big fan of performance debate.  If you're dedicated to performance, I'm going to need a clear explanation of why debate is a critical forum for you to express your performance, and why the speicifc format of policy debate is a good one with which to be pursuing your project.  What does my ballot do, and why is a performance debate better than a policy one.

T/Theory: I'm not the biggest fan of these debates, but they are a neccesary part of debate, and I'm totally okay for using them, even if it's just a timesuck.  RVI's are dumb except in extenuating circumstances (like 10 T shells).  2 conditoinal advocacies is good, 3 is fine but is pushing it, and 4 or more I'll be very sympathetic to a condo claim.  Make sure you SLOW DOWN when going through T/Theory standards.  If i can't flow it, you've lost all that neat analysis.  In-round abuse is always better than theoretical abuse, but both can win.  I default to reasonability, but can be persuaded by competing interps.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.  Good luck and remember to have some fun!

Hi! I debated for four years at Scarsdale High School. I won't vote on arguments that are unwarranted or clearly offensive. But aside from that, do whatever you want. Theory, K's, LARP, Framework, etc. are all fine. Just make sure to start off slow and to thoroughly explain dense arguments. Have fun!

Updated Jan 2020

tl;dr:
I'm tab and will vote on anything.

General Things:

I debated for four years in high school and continued onto 4 years of college debate. I don't frequently judge on the circuit, so I'd appreciate if you'd slow down. That being said, if I say “louder”, that means speak louder, not slow down. I won’t feel comfortable voting on something that I’m not sure if I heard.

I'm open to a wide variety of argumentative styles and approaches.

I’m tab. I’ll listen to almost anything you tell me, but if I genuinely feel uncomfortable (because you’re saying something racist/sexist/etc.) I’ll stop flowing.

Extensions:

I have an exceedingly low threshhold for extensions.

If something is dropped, I’ll grant you it if you just explicitly point it out.

I’m amenable to voting off of tricks, but if I don’t think the argument was flowable the first time, I’ll listen to responses in the NR/2AR. That being said, I think most arguments are flowable most of the time.

Framework and Ks:

I’m familiar with framework and I studied Philosophy at Harvard. Since leaving high school, I’ve become convinced by Sophia Caldera’s stance on comparing frameworks:

• The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.

I’m interested in well-fleshed out framework debates between framework and the K, as well as well-warranted theory interactions.

I don't know what "link harder into the K" means. Do you mean that your opponent has done or said something that indicates that there is a second, independently sufficient way in which they link into the K? Or do you mean that they're repeating the action that caused them to link into it in the first place? Am I supposed to judge differently if someone links "hard" into the K as opposed to "a moderate amount" or "just a little bit"? Be clear and specific.

Theory:

Slow down on interps. Please make clear arguments for whatever paradigm issues you want me to use on theory.

I have no preconceptions about whether fairness or education is more important.

For some reason, someone runs disclosure theory in front of me in probably half the rounds I judge. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I find that I often pick it up and speak it well. If it's well-executed and wins the round, I'll pick it up and speak it well. But I still don't like it. That probably tells you something about the kind of judge that I am.

Other:

I don’t like passive aggression in the CX. If you’re gonna critical of your opponent’s arguments, be open about it. If you are passive aggressive, it won’t affect your speaks or whether or not you win or lose, but I might be sarcastic during my RFD.

I do not care about your attire, accent, or school. Be respectful. But also feel free to indict or challenge what exactly "being respectful" means.

I pay attention during CX.

Speech times are probably the only "rule" I'll always enforce. I can be flexible on other things that other judges might take to be unchangeable. For example, you could convince me that you should be allowed to bring up something from the AC in the 2AR even if it wasn't extended in the 1AR, if it's well explained (in the AC, or maybe even the 1AR).

Have questions? Ask me.

There’s a rumor going around (started by me, here) that I’ll give you slightly higher speaks for referencing RuPaul’s Drag Race.

Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.

I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.

I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.

All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.

When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.

Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.

Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.

Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.

I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.

Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!

Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

Harvard 2024 Update: Hi! I took time away from debate in 2020 to focus on mental health. It’s been a while, so I may be rusty and have certainly not kept up with new trends and developments in “the meta”. Please start at 70% top speed if it’s round 1-2. And please be kind to each other. I’ve missed debate and I’m excited to come out of “retirement” to judge again.

Background: LD in HS, CX at Cornell, coached for over 8 years in the Northeast.

The short: I want to see you being the best version of yourself in whatever form of debate you're inclined to. I have a few defaults but will generally evaluate the round however debaters would like me to. I don’t inflate speaks. Please be kind. I’ll call for evidence if I need it; no need to put me on the email chain.

Do

• strategic issue selection, i.e., don't go for everything in your last speech
• organization
• clash
• extend the whole argument: claim, warrant, impact, implication.
• thorough evidence comparison
• clear and thoughtful impact calc
• 30s are for people I think are a model of what debate should and can be. It's not enough to be good at debate; be good for debate.
• Circuit debaters should be nice to transitioning debaters from JV and more traditional programs. That does not mean don't do your best or compromise your round; however, it does mean giving clear answers in CX, making efforts to accommodate for tech, and maybe considering 3 off instead of 4 off.
• FLOW. +up to 0.5 speaks for a good flow. If you tell me you have a good flow and show me at the end of the round before I submit my decision, you will be eligible for some game-y speaker points.

Don't

• steal prep.
• play in CX. answer the question.
• have excessively long underviews. Read a better aff.
• read excessively long overviews. If you have a 1min+ long overview, I would prefer you read it at the bottom after you have done line-by-line. I promise I will get more of it if you do that.
• tag things as independent voters; just weigh. Do the work to resolve arguments so that I don't have to. Calling something independent doesn't make it independent from the rest of the reps/performances/args in the round.
• be a coward. Engage. Have the debate.

Kritiks

• these debates are best when debaters have a lot of content/topic knowledge and can make the connection to their theory of power. It seems sophomoric to critique something you have a limited understanding of. A lot of your authors have likely spent a lot of time writing historical analyses and it would be remiss to be ignorant of that.
• high threshold for explanations
• spend more time explaining the internal link between the speech act or the performance and the impact
• Really sympathetic to voting neg on presumption if the aff doesn't clearly articulate how the aff is a move from the status quo.
• please don't read model minority type args

Policy style arguments (LARP)

• love a well-researched position. Do it if it's your thing.
• probably the easiest type of debate for me to evaluate.
• 90% of time you just gotta do the weighing/impact calc.

T v. stock/larp

• read it
• competing interps
• RVIs on T are a tough sell in front of me

T/FW v. K affs

• these debate becomes better as methods debates implicating the relationship amongst form, content, and norms
• sometimes these get messy. I need more explanation of the implication of the arguments and how to sequence my evaluation.
• Go slow and collapse early

Theory

• Because I default competing interpretations, I treat these as CP/DA debates unless otherwise argued in round. To win my ballot, my RFD should be able to explain the abuse story, the structural implications for the activity (and its significance), and why your interpretation is the best norm to resolve those impacts. If you are not clearly explaining this, then I will have a difficult voting on it.
• I won't vote off:
  • "new affs bad"
  • "need an explicit text" interps
  • disclosure against novices and traditional debaters
• I am sympathetic to a "gut-check" on frivolous theory
• Good interps to run:
  • condo bad;
  • abusive perms bad (severance perms, intrinsic perms, etc);
  • abusive CPs bad (delay CPs, etc);
  • abusive fiat bad (object fiat, multiactor fiat, etc).
• If I'm being honest, I don't enjoy flowing more than 20 sec worth of spikes/theory pre-empts at the bottom of the AC; just read a better aff
• I don't have many defaults about 1ar theory, but generally think it's a poor strategic decision

I am a former policy and ld debater, so any theory arguments are okay.

Spreading is okay as long as it is clear.

I do not judge on what is said during crossex, unless what was said is brought into a speech or is highly problematic.

The two things I stress on: sign-posting and weighing. :)

For some reason, I have two separate Tabroom accounts at the moment, so this paradigm is copy-pasted from the account I usually use:

Add me to the email chain -- lucyli547@gmail.com

Background

Blue Valley North '17, Harvard '21

I debated for four years in high school. Most of those debates were on the Kansas circuit, with a few national circuit tournaments now and then. I haven't judged on this year's topic, so I probably won't be familiar with topic-specific language or acronyms. I also haven't been too involved in debate since my high school career ended, so I'm probably a little rusty -- adjust accordingly.

General

1) There are arguments I like or don't like more than others, but don't let this dissuade you from reading what you're good at. I will do my best to keep an open mind and evaluate the debate based on the flow.

2) I'll clear you a couple times if I can't understand you, but after that, you're on your own. Signposting and differentiating between tags and cards is also extremely helpful.

3) Arguments must include warrants, and when you extend them, you should contextualize them.

4) Tech over truth. I won't read evidence unless there's a dispute about its content in the round.

5) Please be respectful, especially during CX.

6) Write my ballot for me in the 2NR and 2AR.

Non-traditional affirmatives

I'm probably not the best judge for these --I generally think the affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. However, I can be persuaded otherwise by a good defense of the aff's mechanism, and I try to decide the debate based on what happens in the debate itself. That being said, know that I do lean a bit on this issue.

Topicality

I love a good T debate. Because of its intricacy, you should slow down on T -- please don't bulldoze through your standards; I probably won't be able to write them all down. Unless told otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be persuasive sometimes, but only when you explain what it means. I think topicality is always a voting issue.

Disads

Impact calculus needs to begin in the block and be developed in the 2NR. Good turns case analysis is paramount and gets you a long way in the impact calc debate. I think I subscribe a little less to the offense-defense paradigm than many -- if the aff wins a low enough risk of a link, I think that can make a lot of the neg's offense on the disad irrelevant.

Counterplans

I will listen to any type of counterplan -- delay, PIC, agent, process, etc. -- and I read them all in high school. I'm also willing to reject a counterplan if the aff wins the theory debate. I don't think "CP solves better" is a good net benefit.

Kritiks

This is the style of argumentation I am least familiar with. The only thing this means is that I am probably not well read in your literature and will not understand what your alt does unless you explain it to me. It's also not a good idea to throw buzzwords at me, because I may not know what they mean. I started dabbling in K lit at the end of high school -- I'm familiar with cap, neolib, and security -- but if you're reading a K in front of me, be ready to contextualize and explain. Tell me a clear story.

Case

Good case debates can be extremely compelling to me. Offense is obviously very important, but I think defense is underrated. I love a good impact turn debate, but I will not accept racism or sexism good arguments.

Theory

With the exception of condo, I generally think theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I also almost always think condo is good. Contextualize your theory arguments to the debate; please don't just read your blocks straight down.

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

TL;DR: I will listen to anything short of oppression good, and have experience reading pretty much everything. I haven't judged since Harvard last year, so I may take a bit of time to get used to spreading.

I debated at Collegiate for four years and qualified to ToC my senior year reading almost exclusively "creatively topical" affirmatives, and negating with a lot of Wilderson, but also some T and LARP. I am extremely receptive to creative reasons I should give you more speaks, but tend to give speaks on the lower side otherwise. I have no real preferences in terms of how I will evaluate the winner of a round and would much prefer you debate how you're comfortable debating than seeing you read an author you're unfamiliar with. Despite my own experience debating, I have taken the side of T in the vast majority of rounds I have judged. The most important thing to me is that you and your opponent have fun and show some creativity - I don't want to see the 17th iteration of Truth Testing and a bunch of NIBs from a negative (although I will vote for it if you win it), and I really prefer not to vote on the same topicality dump everyone reads against "questionably topical" AFFs. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round!

One more important thing - spreading is hard, so I'll say clear as many times as I need to, but be aware the more I have to do it, the more frustrated I will get and likely the lower your speaks will get. Additionally, I will not backflow - if I didn't hear it, I'm not considering it, so it is really in your best interest to slow down or clear up if I ask.

Last thing, if it matters to any of you, here is a list of coaches who were influential to me as a debater/as a person in general: Tillman Huett, Elijah Smith, Benjamin Koh, Tom Evnen, Phoebe Kuo, Abdul Beretay, Devane Murphy.

Signpost, focus on making clear links, stress impacts, try to construct a plausible and persuasive narrative. I'm fine with speed, but understand that there is a tradeoff between quality and quantity of flow coverage. Be civil please, it's just high school debate. Speaks are assigned by quality of arguments not by necessary fluidity of oral presentation - be aware of this. Also, fyi, I do reward teams for style points. Humor, wit, and interesting arguments are persuasive in real life, so I believe they should be rewarded in a debate context as well.

Hi,

I'm a student at Northeastern University who currently competes in Parliamentary debate, but I did PF and some Congress in High School. What that means for you is that I can follow some speed but not full-on spreading, and that I tend to prefer logical arguments or empirical ones.

PF PARADIGM

I'm probably not gonna vote off a relatively minor point. In your final focus, spend more time explaining the biggest issues of clash in the round and why you outweigh. I don't want to here every single aff and neg contention being treated as it's own voting issue. I'll vote off of how those contentions interact with each other.

Give warrants other than specific pieces of evidence. People find cards for all sorts of trends, and there's usually conflicting evidence. If you have a logical warrant for why your card makes sense, I can vote off that. But if both teams just give me stats without explainations, I can't vote off either.

Also, refer to cards by the thing they say, not the author/source, otherwise I have no idea what you're referring to.

For high speaks, try to attack an argument at the warrants and the impacts, and then outweigh it even if you lose that point. Don't be afraid to not spend too much time responding to low-impact points just for the sake of not dropping somethingif it means you're using your time to develop the more important issues in the round.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I don't judge Congress much, so in general treat your speech like a speech in a debate event. By that, I mean that I don't care much for rhetorical devices, I'd prefer warrants an impacts. Try to include substantive refutation in your speech if there are

a) really important refutations that you have to make 

or b) clear, repetitive issues on either side that should be compared, refuted, and weighed.

Do: 

Flow Arguments 

Weigh Impacts and Turn Arguments 

Run Thematic Args 

Don't:

Be mean

Hurt my ears

Curse distastefully

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

I'm 4 years out from circuit LD, and currently debate for Harvard.

Important: please please please have email chains sorted out before the round. Waiting for email chains is not fun and it slows down the tournament. My email is tejal_patwardhan [at] college.harvard.edu

Speed is fine, prefiat arguments are fine, and performances are fine. I'll basically vote on anything unless it's blatantly offensive. Pref me highly if you run Ks/plans, pref me fine if you run phil (if people still do that), and pref me the lowest if you run theory/spikes (unless the pool is bad--I almost exclusively read tricks my sophomore year so I will vote on this if it's really your thing). I've been out for a while, so I might not know what new abbreviations, jargon, or norms are--please explain these in your speech so I know what I'm voting for. An argument that is just an assertion without a warrant isn't an argument, even if it's dropped.

I like disclosure! Compiling your speech doc counts against your speech time! Please be kind and make me laugh!

I give nice speaks, especially if you weigh well and sit early.

If you have questions about my paradigm, just ask. Good luck!

Harrison HS (2012-2016)

Harvard University (2016-present)

Updated for Harvard 2020.

Email: smryan100@gmail.com

Hi!

I debated LD for four years at Harrison High School, and now do APDA in college.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, message me on Facebook or email me (you're also welcome to contact me after a round if you have questions).

General Things:

* For Harvard 2020: I have not judged since this tournament last year (and have been away from the circuit for awhile) so please do not go top speed / be aware that I may not be super up to date with any new league norms!!!!! *
I will listen to any arguments you want to make provided that they are well warranted and clearly explained to me.
I won’t vote on things that I don’t understand so if you’re running something confusing please make sure you slow down and give me a clear explanation of your case.
Also I am much more likely to vote on one well explained, weighed and warranted argument than a few one-liners.

Flashing and compiling documents won’t count as prep time but please don’t be ridiculous and abuse this.

In round behavior:
I don’t care how fast or slow you talk or whether you sit or stand.
I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you but if I have to continuously say clear and nothing changes then I won’t be able to flow your arguments and can’t vote on things that I haven’t flowed.
Also please slow down on author names and for tags.

Please be respectful to each other. Debate should be a space where everyone is comfortable to engage and participate and if I feel that someone is acting exclusionary / overtly rude I will drop speaks or the debater depending on the severity of the behavior.

Arguments:

I don't really care what kinds of arguments (Ks, plans, theory, phil) you run. Just explain them to me and keep in mind that I don't judge very often so I'm not especially familiar with the kinds of things people have been running recently.

Feel free to ask me questions before / after the round.

I'm a sophmore at Tufts in my second year of collegiate debate. I do parlimentary debate, so I won't weigh cards as heavily as other judges might.

The most important things to me are:

Argumentation - your argument needs to be well warranted and impacted so I can understand the logic behind it as well its affect

Weighing - tell me why your issue is the most important one in the round

Presentation - don't spread, make sure I can hear your points and that they are delivered clearly and consistently

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

Hi! I debated for Cambridge Rindge and Latin in Massachusetts and graduated in 2017. Please add me to the email chain: ollieqs@gmail.com. I have fewer thoughts now that I'm not super involved, so here are just a couple important things:

• I don't flow off speech docs, yet also have relatively poor spreading comprehension -- please slow down a little bit overall, and slow down significantly below that for analytics
• I'll vote on anything with a warrant except for [awful thing] good; I was fairly "flex" as a debater
• Defaults: presume neg, fairness is a voter, competing interps, drop the arg, perms are a test of competition (btw, in my view this means they don't need net benefits)
• Prep ends when you're done assembling your speech doc, and I'll probably think you're cheating if you take more than my arbitrary standard for a reasonable amount of time to email/flash
• I am not (consciously) biased against K's or K affs - I just don't think I'm very good at evaluating them. If you run them, please explain using clear, concise sentences with small words, and be very explicit about framework, weighing, and how the alt/advocacy functions
• Affs should have a framework. If you don't read one, I'd be pretty receptive to a 1NC that reads any framework + args that you don't get to read a new framework in the 1AR
• I'm ok with tricks that are "tricky" in virtue of having clever justifications/implications; I do not like tricks that are tricky because they are hidden and short. Also, I will not vote on tricks that genuinely make no sense (as in I truly couldn't explain the warrant in an RFD), even if dropped. Bear in mind: the more blippy it is, the less likely it is to make sense.
• Random notes: I don't understand the need to distinguish permissibility from presumption. Permissibility is a subset of presumption. Also, I dislike truth testing vs. comparative worlds debates. Comparative worlds is just truth testing minus NIBs, so the real debate is just NIBs good/bad.
• Things that are a waste of your speech time: prewritten overviews, extending the text of interpretations/voters/paradigm issues, self-evident theory internal links, "here's how the round breaks down"'s that are really just repetitions of every argument in the debate
• Speaks bonuses: tech, being completely comprehensible, being friendly and having fun, giving me a debate I haven't heard before, having the smart answers to arguments rather than the obvious ones, sitting down early when you know you can
• Speaks penalties: ASKING FOR A 30 (-1 speaks), yelling, general hubris, being rude, not disclosing, inefficiency, not understanding/actively misunderstanding your own arguments, being exclusionary to novices
• Random things I dislike: waving your arms around in disbelief during your opponent's speech (I probably did this though don't @ me), using "we," referring to me by name during your speech

If you have questions about anything else, don't hesitate to ask!

I love debate! I have a background in traditional LD and currently participate in American Parliamentary.

I'm mostly tab besides a few preferences

For LD:

- I love value criterion debate, but don't think it's necessary for a round

- If you run anything non topical please explain why it matters in the round. I.e. don't just read a k and move on, read a k and then immediately tell me how it functions in the round.

- flex prep is fine if both debaters agree

For WSD

- please be clear with your warranting

- Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'

- Make sure you properly engage with clash. don't just summarize what you disagree on, analyze the purpose it plays in the round, like whether or not this links into any viable offense, for example.

- please keep your reply speeches organized so I'm also on board with the biggest issues in the round :)

For APDA

- team w/ most meme page rep picks up

- of the winning team the most frequent participant in doomthreads gets highest speaks

Did you know?

When hippos are upset, their sweat turns red.

Now you know! Have a great round and go team!

I'm a former PFer and Extemp speaker from East Ridge in Minnesota, and traveled pretty extensively on the national circuit in high school. I graduated in 2017 and have been occasionally judging for high school/college tournaments since. Some general preferences:

PF

-Speed: Generally fine, as long as you're staying a few notches below Policy-level and still speaking clearly. However, keep in mind that a few good arguments are better than many subpar arguments.

-Evidence: Please be reasonable about this. Don't paraphrase the evidence so strongly that it no longer stays true to its intent, and be careful about how you interpret numbers. Also, reading dates (or at least years) is always a good move.

-Lay vs flow: Somewhere in the middle. Winning on the flow is important (and yes, I flow), but that is often reliant on whether or not you can explain your points clearly and intuitively.

-Speaking of flowing: Please signpost. It makes everyone's life easier

-Impact everything: Unless it has an impact, it doesn't matter. Similarly, weigh your impacts to tell me the degree to which they matter.

-Clash: Make sure that you are debating with your opponents, not through them. Summarize the clash in the round and tell me why you have won in the last few speeches.

-Crossfire: Be polite within reason. Nobody wins a shouting match.

Extemp

-Content vs presentation: Somewhere along a 50/50 split, with quickly diminishing marginal returns to presentation but not to content. That is, past a certain threshold of presentation (i.e. I don't really care if you stumble once vs twice), content becomes far more important.

-Structure and substructure: Very important. I do flow, and would like to be able to write arguments out cleanly. Along similar lines, if an argument is not linked to the question or impacted, I probably won't consider it heavily.

-Originality: Creativity is great! The converse - stock answers, canned intros, etc. are not great.